I second Jeff's call for some transparency here.
Ben
On Aug 18, 10:17 am, Jeff wrote:
> Sometimes more warning isn't possible if maintenance is necessary to
> avoid the system tipping over because of a problem. But of course, if
> it wasn't an emergency maintenance, then 22 hours of warning is
Sometimes more warning isn't possible if maintenance is necessary to
avoid the system tipping over because of a problem. But of course, if
it wasn't an emergency maintenance, then 22 hours of warning is
definitely insufficient.
But in spite of the comments above, I'll be quiet about this when
Go
+1 for more advance warning, please.
Ben
On Aug 17, 11:52 am, Joshua Smith wrote:
> I really appreciate that you are warning us about the maintenance.
> However, next time, I'd ask:
>
> 1) More warning, if possible; and,
>
> 2) Do it sometime other than the middle of the day in the United
> S
Who knows if your latte is the time in that low usage?
Or u think they just 'decide' to do maintance and do it with no
further studies of how the applications will be affected by that.
One thing we have to think too is the applications that pays for
storage. If the most part of the applications
Fair enough, but I bet they could look at their own big-picture
dashboards and find the low point of usage. And I *bet* that time
will not just happen to be when the CA employees have finished their
first latte. :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message be
I think they are in a rock and a hard place, especially if it is critical
work - Your late night is my early morning - it is a global service that
could quite possibly have more developers in the rest of the world than
there are in the US.
Paul
2009/8/17 Joshua Smith
>
> I really appreciate th
