Kinda funny and sad that so many people here only see this as some sort of stupid or unfair action against HN, seemingly without even acknowledging that every single other customer on that shared server had as much right individually, and more right collectively, to not have their performance negatively impacted by HN.
Yeah, it sucks that one of our favorite tech news sites was impacted by this, but how impacted were all those other customers?
It is easy to make a smartaleck comment about how Pair was trying to upsell by doing this, which is preposterous. Pair is a well-respected provider with many more years providing good service at a fair price than HN has existed, and I'd be willing to bet will be around after HN has peaked and begins to move back to the traffic load that might make sense on a shared system.
But the fault here ultimately lies with the folks running HN who thought it was wise or appropriate to host any of its content on a shared server that likely cost them less money per month than most of us spend on soft drinks in a week.
Strawman. Nobody's saying HN/YC should be allowed to overuse resources (then again, I don't know the terms they had agreed to). But not giving a warning is crappy customer service, no matter how many other folks do likewise, how many years Pair has been doing other stuff well, or however else you want to spin it. In this case, it also happens to be a big sales screwup.
Well, you didn't identify what I said that you think is a strawman, but I'll point out yours.
Fine, nobody's saying HN/YC should be allowed to overuse resources. I didn't say anybody was saying that.
Not giving a warning probably doesn't count as great customer service, but then again, once the problem had been identified by Pair, and once they knew of the negative impact HN was having on every other paying customer on that server, what kind of customer service to those other customers would it have been for Pair to fire off an email to HN then wait an hour, or thirty minutes, or ten minutes, before shutting it down?
How long should Pair have allowed HN to impact other customers to satisfy folks here? And what makes HN more important than any other paying customer on that server?
Oh right, it's because you read and like HN, which, ironically, so do I.
As for it being a sales screwup, maybe. I kinda doubt there is a great deal of overlap between HN readership and the average potential Pair customer. We could also suggest that Pair taking action to protect all those other customers on the server is an example of how they would provide good service to the many when they're being hammered by one overpowering fellow customer.
Comments
Kinda funny and sad that so many people here only see this as some sort of stupid or unfair action against HN, seemingly without even acknowledging that every single other customer on that shared server had as much right individually, and more right collectively, to not have their performance negatively impacted by HN.
Yeah, it sucks that one of our favorite tech news sites was impacted by this, but how impacted were all those other customers?
It is easy to make a smartaleck comment about how Pair was trying to upsell by doing this, which is preposterous. Pair is a well-respected provider with many more years providing good service at a fair price than HN has existed, and I'd be willing to bet will be around after HN has peaked and begins to move back to the traffic load that might make sense on a shared system.
But the fault here ultimately lies with the folks running HN who thought it was wise or appropriate to host any of its content on a shared server that likely cost them less money per month than most of us spend on soft drinks in a week.
Strawman. Nobody's saying HN/YC should be allowed to overuse resources (then again, I don't know the terms they had agreed to). But not giving a warning is crappy customer service, no matter how many other folks do likewise, how many years Pair has been doing other stuff well, or however else you want to spin it. In this case, it also happens to be a big sales screwup.
Well, you didn't identify what I said that you think is a strawman, but I'll point out yours.
Fine, nobody's saying HN/YC should be allowed to overuse resources. I didn't say anybody was saying that.
Not giving a warning probably doesn't count as great customer service, but then again, once the problem had been identified by Pair, and once they knew of the negative impact HN was having on every other paying customer on that server, what kind of customer service to those other customers would it have been for Pair to fire off an email to HN then wait an hour, or thirty minutes, or ten minutes, before shutting it down?
How long should Pair have allowed HN to impact other customers to satisfy folks here? And what makes HN more important than any other paying customer on that server?
Oh right, it's because you read and like HN, which, ironically, so do I.
As for it being a sales screwup, maybe. I kinda doubt there is a great deal of overlap between HN readership and the average potential Pair customer. We could also suggest that Pair taking action to protect all those other customers on the server is an example of how they would provide good service to the many when they're being hammered by one overpowering fellow customer.