Mark's Meanderings


Handling an Outage

12 Feb 2013

Last night the colocation provider I use for Dreamwidth, ServerBeach, was down for nearly four hours from 0000 CST to about 0330 CST. This blog post is a customer-side postmortem about the company's handling of this outage.

Outage Notification

I generally classify outages as trivial (seconds to, say, 2-3 minutes), minor (3-10 minutes), or major (10+ minutes). I will refer to these in the rest of this post as the handling does change -- to help balance resolution time with customer comfort, mostly. Of course, it's worth mentioning that one size does not fit all, and what I find as best practices might be somewhat different if you have an SLA or if you are in another industry.

Outage handling starts when you are notified of a problem. This usually happens at the bottom somewhere -- a customer service rep, a customer, or your monitoring solution will alert someone to the problem. There are pretty good odds that this is someone who is external to the company or someone who has nothing to do with your technical operations.

For Dreamwidth, I never notice an outage first. It's always a user or one of our volunteers or other staff who will find out that we're down before I ever do. Even Nagios isn't as fast as a human who is actively using the site.

In some situations, too, your monitoring system won't work. In last night's outage, the problem was that the entire data center went off the air. Our monitoring system, being purely internal, had no way of alerting us. (We have in the past had external monitoring, but I found Pingdom unreliable and other options proved too expensive. Maybe there are better options now?) Even if your monitoring system is working fine, some outages just aren't noticed by it. We've all had situations where something isn't correctly monitored or is giving false positives!

For these reasons, it is important to provide a method for users (internal and external) to advise of an outage. Dreamwidth has a Twitter account that end users can talk to, and our mid- to senior-level volunteers and staff all have phone numbers for our systems administrators and know that they can call us 24/7 to advise of an outage.

That's how I found out we were down last night: one of our employees called me and advised me within minutes of the site being down. By that point of course, the outage was considered a minor outage since it had been more than a few minutes.

We have trained our users that, during downtimes, our Twitter account is the place to go for updates. We put up a message advising them that we were down and we were investigating and had no ETA. This took less than a minute of our time and the effects were immediate -- users knew we were aware, that we were on the problem, and they could relax. They responded by being pleasant and thankful and went off to do other things on the Internet instead of continually refreshing the site and getting more and more angry.

The effect this small bit of information can have on your customers is worth overstating: it is the difference between a bad experience where your customer debates finding another provider and one where the customer feels confidence in you and that you are on top of the problem. Internally, it doesn't matter what's going on, let your customers know you're aware. Be calm and confident, but communicate!

Now the caveat I mentioned about outage sizes: I first check to see if the problem is something I can resolve in a minute or less. I.e., if it's a trivial outage, it's better to get the site up immediately and then post a notification that it was down. However, if I realize the outage is at least a minor outage, then it's vital to notify people that there is a problem.

This gives us the first two pieces of a solid outage handling process:

  1. Have a way for users/staff to notify you of downtimes
  2. Acknowledge the downtime immediately if it's minor (3+ minutes)

ServerBeach failed on both fronts. I had no way of notifying them of a downtime except calling their tech support line, which I tried to do, but their phone lines were failing (not picking up at all) and I couldn't get through. I ultimately was able to reach PEER1 (the parent company) but they couldn't really help me.

I could have assumed they knew about the outage, but it would have only been an assumption -- and it's not a good business practice for me to just assume that an outage is being fixed! -- so I had to keep trying for 20 minutes to reach somebody. That was a huge waste of my time, and all because they didn't provide notification that they were aware of a problem.

The first notification I can find was nearly an hour after the downtime started. Completely unacceptable. The entire data center was offline -- thousands of customers -- and they took an hour to let us know.

Ongoing Outages

In this case, the outage was a long one. Nearly four hours of downtime. Outages of that caliber start to get very unnerving for the users, because now you've graduated from "annoyance" to "potentially catastrophic". Why is it taking four hours to come back up? Was there a fire or flood? Meteor strike? Did the government come in and seize the building because of Mega?

At this point someone needs to be on point for communication. It should be someone who can, every so often (I find 30-60 minutes is frequent enough) post and let users know that you're still aware of the problem and, yes, you're still working on it. Even if, like in Dreamwidth's case, we had no information and were just crossing our fingers that ServerBeach would fix things sometime soon. Your very presence is comforting to your users, though, and lets them know that they're important. That feeling is extremely valuable to have -- if you don't encourage goodwill, the lack thereof will be bad for your business.

In this outage, I got most of my information from other customers on Twitter. I followed the #peer1 and #serverbeach hashtag and was collecting information from other people who were customers. This is stupid and bad! I shouldn't have to rely on other customers to give me information about what's going on. It makes the company look incompetent. Seriously.

It was two hours after the outage started before there was official information about the problem. Unfortunately, this information was in a place I never looked -- because the person I did get on the phone earlier told me to look at the PEER1 network status forums, which are separate from the ServerBeach status forums. (Even though my management portal and branding is all PEER1, but because this data center was acquired via ServerBeach, they have a different area for status updates.) This is also ridiculous.

The important parts of the process here:

  1. Have a predictable place to find status updates
  2. Keep users informed of status and ETA (if available)

The first point cannot be stressed enough. Users need to know where to go to find things out. Staff needs to know, too, so they can give the right information to users. Giving a customer wrong information is worse than no information. I spent the whole night thinking that ServerBeach never posted anything -- which was wrong, they had; even if it was way too slow.

In retrospect, now that I'm reading the outage thread on ServerBeach's side, once they got the ball rolling they were following a good flow for updating. They posted every 30-45 minutes and updated with as much information as they had, which was great. Kudos to them for having a good flow once things got going.

Outage Closing

The end of an outage should be handled with the same ideas repeated. Let people know that you're back up, then let them know what happened in as much detail as you have and advise if you will be giving a postmortem. Commit to followthrough so that people know what to expect.

  1. Post an end-of-outage notification, advise if there will be a postmortem
  2. If providing a postmortem later, make it predictably located and linked

ServerBeach did well here (excepting of course that I didn't know where to find this information): they posted an update at the end, said what happened, why it caused an outage, and what they would be doing to fix it. This is a good response -- although since they mentioned a number of things that were unexplained or unclear, it will need to be followed up with a response when those things are clarified.


It is my opinion that service providers should overcommunicate. You will almost never fail by telling the users exactly what is going on, and you will probably find that people are remarkably forgiving if they feel included in the process. Because of this outage, Dreamwidth was down for nearly four hours, but our users were polite and thankful. Just because we let them know what was going on.

ServerBeach's outage was bad, but everything breaks sometime. The real fault here is their handling of the notification process and how disconnected they were from the users. This is inexcusable in a service provider, particularly these days when hosting providers are a dime a dozen and competition is not so much about price. For that matter, I'd pay a premium to ensure that I am hosted with a service that can actually communicate when something is going on.

Now, can someone tell ServerBeach to post a postmortem about their handling of the communication during this outage? :-)

End of rant.


I just received a call from Dax Moreno, Director of Customer Experience. He reached out to talk about the outage. I was able to convey most of this content to him in a less ranty, more constructive way. (Or I hope it came across that way!)

Major points to ServerBeach/PEER1 for reaching out like that. It is never good to have an outage, and the handling at the beginning leaves much to be desired (which Dax agreed with), but having a personal contact from someone nets a huge gain in goodwill from the customer and makes them feel more in control of what is, by its nature, an uncontrollable experience.

Good on 'em for that, then.