iBusinessLawyer
10-01-2000, 02:05 PM
-- Q: How many tech support people does it take to
change a lightbulb?
A: "The lightbulb works fine on my system."
Based on posts on this board, I decided to move my site to JaguarPC.com. Certainly the person posting as "Jaguar" seems to be a decent and responsible fellow.
Unfortunately, I have been having escalating problems with this company. The other day, pings to my site were intermittently averaging 1300 ms (they normally average between 88 and 100 ms). I did a tracert, and found that every hop was fast until the hops at dialtoneinternet and my site, which strongly suggests that this was not a problem with my ISP. I also subscribe to the MIT site checking service, which showed several hours of downtime the night before. I wrote to tech support and was told that neither problem could be happening.
I then subscribed to Netwhistle so that I could double check the MIT service. I found this morning that both Netwhistle and the MIT service showed my site was down for more than an hour earlier this morning. I wrote to tech support, and got the following response:
[From JaguarPC support:] Despite your gadgets to motnitor service it was not down the time we informed you went down. It was taken offline for approx. 5 minutes last night to perform upgrades. There is no way we could run a business with a server down 181 minutes last night, and however
many minutes the tool reported the other night. This would mean our servers go down every night. We could not have built a growing business based on such statistics. If you personally observe downtime then please contact us. There have been two instances of downtime in the last month, each for only minor amounts of time we do admit to that. Neither amounted in any substantial amount of time and we do not forsee any more upcoming upgrades to that server your site is on. Thanks
>
> Subject: JaguarPC Support
>
> ==========================================================================
> Name: Jonathan Bender
> E-mail: jbender@ibusinesslawyer.com
> Uername:
> Password: ****
> Domain:ibusinesslawyer.com
> Phone:
>
> ===================================
> Problem: Last week I reported that
> the MIT robot service had detected site down time, and
> you told me that it could not have happened. I therefore > added netwhistle so that I could double check the MIT
> service. I got the following reports overnight:
> __________
>
> http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com/uptime/index.txt returned "success".
>
> It was last reached by Uptime at 2000-10-01 05:05:49 (Eastern Time (New York)).
> Currently our Oracle database thinks it is 2000-10-01 08:12:50.
> In other words, your server has been unreachable for approximately 187 minutes.
>
> ___________
> FROM NETWHISTLE:
>
> This monitored resource came back on-line.
> Earlier, we detected that it had failed.
> Detailed information is included below.
>
> ************************************************************
>
> Member Account: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Name: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Device Name: LAW OFFICE SITE
> Device Type: HTTP
> Device Tested: http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com
> Alert Time: 10/01/2000 12:35:28 (Greenwich Mean Time)
> Monitor Run Timestamp: 970403728
> Monitor Error Msg: TARGET IS BACK ONLINE AFTER A PREVIOUS FAILURE
> ************************************************************
>
> This monitored resource experienced a failure.
> Detailed information is included below.
>
> ************************************************************
>
> Member Account: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Name: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Device Name: LAW OFFICE SITE
> Device Type: HTTP
> Device Tested: http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com
> Alert Time: 10/01/2000 08:35:31 (Greenwich Mean Time)
> Monitor Run Timestamp: 970389326
> Monitor Error Msg: CONNECTION REFUSED - CONNECTION TO SITE WAS REFUSED.
> ************************************************************
>
> As I said before, I know tech support can be a
> thankless job, and I know that folks can take frustrations > out on tech support people. But I cannot accept any more > declarations that the site "could not have been down." > > Please let me know what you are doing to ensure that
> this will stop happening. If you know what has been > > happening, please let me know. Thanks, and I look forward > to hearing from you.
>
- - - - - - - -
Now if TWO independent sitechecking services show my site was down for so long, then the chances are pretty darn high that my site was, in fact, unreachable for longer than 5 minutes -- whether or not the whole server was down. MIT checks every 15 minutes, and Netwhistle checks every hour.
I post this in the hope that "Jaguar" is using an employee or contractor for tech support, and is unaware that
customers are getting this kind of response when they send
in this amount of evidence about problems. I hope to hear from him soon.
-- Jon Bender
change a lightbulb?
A: "The lightbulb works fine on my system."
Based on posts on this board, I decided to move my site to JaguarPC.com. Certainly the person posting as "Jaguar" seems to be a decent and responsible fellow.
Unfortunately, I have been having escalating problems with this company. The other day, pings to my site were intermittently averaging 1300 ms (they normally average between 88 and 100 ms). I did a tracert, and found that every hop was fast until the hops at dialtoneinternet and my site, which strongly suggests that this was not a problem with my ISP. I also subscribe to the MIT site checking service, which showed several hours of downtime the night before. I wrote to tech support and was told that neither problem could be happening.
I then subscribed to Netwhistle so that I could double check the MIT service. I found this morning that both Netwhistle and the MIT service showed my site was down for more than an hour earlier this morning. I wrote to tech support, and got the following response:
[From JaguarPC support:] Despite your gadgets to motnitor service it was not down the time we informed you went down. It was taken offline for approx. 5 minutes last night to perform upgrades. There is no way we could run a business with a server down 181 minutes last night, and however
many minutes the tool reported the other night. This would mean our servers go down every night. We could not have built a growing business based on such statistics. If you personally observe downtime then please contact us. There have been two instances of downtime in the last month, each for only minor amounts of time we do admit to that. Neither amounted in any substantial amount of time and we do not forsee any more upcoming upgrades to that server your site is on. Thanks
>
> Subject: JaguarPC Support
>
> ==========================================================================
> Name: Jonathan Bender
> E-mail: jbender@ibusinesslawyer.com
> Uername:
> Password: ****
> Domain:ibusinesslawyer.com
> Phone:
>
> ===================================
> Problem: Last week I reported that
> the MIT robot service had detected site down time, and
> you told me that it could not have happened. I therefore > added netwhistle so that I could double check the MIT
> service. I got the following reports overnight:
> __________
>
> http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com/uptime/index.txt returned "success".
>
> It was last reached by Uptime at 2000-10-01 05:05:49 (Eastern Time (New York)).
> Currently our Oracle database thinks it is 2000-10-01 08:12:50.
> In other words, your server has been unreachable for approximately 187 minutes.
>
> ___________
> FROM NETWHISTLE:
>
> This monitored resource came back on-line.
> Earlier, we detected that it had failed.
> Detailed information is included below.
>
> ************************************************************
>
> Member Account: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Name: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Device Name: LAW OFFICE SITE
> Device Type: HTTP
> Device Tested: http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com
> Alert Time: 10/01/2000 12:35:28 (Greenwich Mean Time)
> Monitor Run Timestamp: 970403728
> Monitor Error Msg: TARGET IS BACK ONLINE AFTER A PREVIOUS FAILURE
> ************************************************************
>
> This monitored resource experienced a failure.
> Detailed information is included below.
>
> ************************************************************
>
> Member Account: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Name: IBUSINESSLAWYER
> Device Name: LAW OFFICE SITE
> Device Type: HTTP
> Device Tested: http://www.ibusinesslawyer.com
> Alert Time: 10/01/2000 08:35:31 (Greenwich Mean Time)
> Monitor Run Timestamp: 970389326
> Monitor Error Msg: CONNECTION REFUSED - CONNECTION TO SITE WAS REFUSED.
> ************************************************************
>
> As I said before, I know tech support can be a
> thankless job, and I know that folks can take frustrations > out on tech support people. But I cannot accept any more > declarations that the site "could not have been down." > > Please let me know what you are doing to ensure that
> this will stop happening. If you know what has been > > happening, please let me know. Thanks, and I look forward > to hearing from you.
>
- - - - - - - -
Now if TWO independent sitechecking services show my site was down for so long, then the chances are pretty darn high that my site was, in fact, unreachable for longer than 5 minutes -- whether or not the whole server was down. MIT checks every 15 minutes, and Netwhistle checks every hour.
I post this in the hope that "Jaguar" is using an employee or contractor for tech support, and is unaware that
customers are getting this kind of response when they send
in this amount of evidence about problems. I hope to hear from him soon.
-- Jon Bender
