OneDrive is broken: Microsoft's cloudy storage drops from the sky for EU users It is OneDrive's turn to get a beating with the stick of fail as the service took a tumble this morning. Issues first began appearing at around 08:00 GMT as users around Europe logged in, expecting to find their files, and found instead a picture of a bicycle with a flat tyre or a dropped ice cream cone. Oh, you guys! @ …
" the little picture of a paper aeroplane with a snubbed nose well and truly made up for my inability to get to all my fecking files."
Is there a collection of these someplace? It might be fun to "share" it in a snarky manner around 'teh intarwebs'.
So, at Micro-shaft, do they have *ENOUGH* *TIME* to draw these 'cutesy' "ooops ME BAD" types of "excuse" pics? But NOT! ENOUGH! TIME! TO! MAKE! THEIR! SERVICES! RELIABLE!!!
I'd say they need to "re-think their priorities".
"and suggest to the potentially harassed and pissed off user that they just try again needs a massive slap around the chops."
Perhaps iits the user that needs a slap around the chops for being such a cretinous mug as to believe all always available Cloud hype in the first place. Certainly anyone who continues to rely on MS cloud with no fallback option after the succession of cockups iis suffered deserves everything they get.
yes, but said user will more often than not be some poor sod who's had it decreed upon them by some overinflated CIO that their company has gone cloud, and therefore they now have to keep all their files in the cloud, and that it has to be the MS flavour of it. Because cloud is good.
Poor user ;(
yes, but said user will more often than not be some poor sod who's had it decreed upon them by some overinflated CIO that their company has gone cloud, and therefore they now have to keep all their files in the cloud, and that it has to be the MS flavour of it. Because cloud is good.Poor user ;(
In which case it wouldn't be "poor user", as it is no longer the individual user's problem, nothing for them to worry about. It is the corporations problem, and the individual user is perfectly entitled to sit at their desk twiddling their thumbs, reading the paper, browsing the web stress free, at their bosses expense, until the issue is sorted.
A friend of mine told me this evening that's *exactly* how her day went. Her employer mandated all their files be in the cloud, all their programs hosted there, & crowed happily about the money the company would save in doing so. Right up until they have *any* issue with said cloud provider that stops their work dead in its tracks. She couldn't get to their customer files thus she couldn't interact with said customers (lest they want said changes she was unable to make) & that left her with nothing to do all day but read her (physical) book.
I asked if she was told to do make-work/busy-work in the mean time, to which she laughed "That would have required a connection to our host. I'll give you three guesses what we DIDN'T have all day and the first three don't count!"
She got paid to sit on her ass & read a book today. And so did all her coworkers in their office. All because some CxO decided "the cloud" was the way to save gobs of money. I wonder if the idled employees got paid today out of said CxO's Golden Parachute to pound the lesson home, but I'm afraid the company will simply take it out on the innocent employees rather than the person that caused the situation to happen in the first place.
Wrong. Those consequences have been repeatedly and frequently exposed, so that there is no one that works anywhere near IT who can claim that he didn't have a clue.
What this is compares much better to a lesson in sheep herding, with major CEOs and "decision-makers" being the sheep, herded to this position bleating gleefully about how much money would be saved (and counting their additional bonuses on the way).
Well, people, you can now take out your calculators and count the money lost, per hour, for all your employees who cannot do their jobs. You should at least return your bonuses in a token gesture to offset the cost of such short-sightedness.
You should at least return your bonuses in a token gesture to offset the cost of such short-sightedness.
The recipients would find that notion at best humorous, but not realistically entertain it as something worth considering. Personally I would agree, but only when augmented with mandatory tarring and feathering.
@Pascal Monett
In modern management theory this is not correct. The CEO/Decision Maker still made the savings promised by the snake oil cloud vendors. This can be proved by looking at the invoices. They paid less for cloud services than they would for internal storage.
The "failure" was made by the working level staff who should have been flexible and agile enough to cope with any failure.
Consequently the CEO/Decision Maker bonuses will increase, working level pay/bonuses will be curtailed.
As Pascal Monett said:
"What this is compares much better to a lesson in sheep herding, with major CEOs and "decision-makers" being the sheep,..."
THIS has been the main problem with corporate computing right from the start, and Microsoft essentially built their business on those with purchasing power having that mindset. The "You can't get fired for buying IBM" attitude was what made many businesses get desktop PC's in the first place, and that meant they ended up with an operating system made by a little outfit called Microsoft simply because that's what came with the boxes they'd just bought, not because there was any analysis of whether the OS that came with it was better than other options - the hardware and the software that came with it were generally viewed as a unit buy folk who generally didn't know any better.
What has astonished me over the years is the willingness of businesses to put up with the blatant activities of Microsoft, Apple and others to try to actually force vendor lock-in on customers (rather than merely encourage it), and this despite (in MS's case, at least - I have zero experience of Apple products) software that has been shockingly bad and unreliable at times. Things like the file format wars and companies forcing GUI changes on users rather than offering them as new alternatives that people might enjoy...
How in hell anyone could, with a straight face, laud Bill Gates and MS as having made computers easy to use (as I've seen stated on several occasions over the years) without intending to be sarcastic I do not know, unless they did so with a complete ignorance of the subject of IT. And there's the fundamental problem with IT in a nutshell - it tends to be people who don't understand IT who make the major purchasing decisions, both in businesses and in the home.
Office 352 - 360 depending on where you live, I think.
Put it this way... it ain't five-nines:
SLA level of 99.999 % uptime/availability gives the following periods of potential downtime/unavailability:
Daily: 0.9s
Weekly: 6.0s
Monthly: 26.3s
Yearly: 5m 15.6s
It's closer to 2-nines or less:
SLA level of 99 % uptime/availability gives the following periods of potential downtime/unavailability:
Daily: 14m 24.0s
Weekly: 1h 40m 48.0s
Monthly: 7h 18m 17.5s
Yearly: 3d 15h 39m 29.5s
One moment ... is that "Yearly" ... because ... we have exceeded 3 days of downtime over the last 30 days....
Office 365, Exchange, MFA and, what was the other, again ? For me, MFA outage lasted roughly 30 hours ... between 25 and 30 - not sure if my system was caching something, anyway ...
Yes, it is funny, not really for the poor sods who rely on it ... I am forced to use it and no, never will I rely on it ... service is too flaky and they're too nosy.
I've got to be honest, I'm curious as to what goes wrong with this sort of thing, because it's the same pretty much everywhere.
MMOs, ISPs, cloud providers, train companies, banks: the time lag between "customers notice en mass" and "the service desk are told/permitted to treat it as a major incident" is almost always achingly long.
Almost all of them should have easily visible metrics that reveal the issue: your logins drop off a cliff. All the trains are behind on their routes. Transactions/minute have doubled or halved or whatever.
So why don't they have a way for the poor grunts on the helldesk to be told "it's buggered, tell people we're working on it and will provide an update at 14:00 UTC"? Why are they left fielding angry customers armed only with "try rebooting" scripts? It's not just bad customer service, it's down-right unfair to your staff.
"support orifice spent the early part of the outage in denial, asking users to clear their browser cache and cookies".
Yep. It always seems to run like that. Any of these organisations. Customers knowing that something has gone wrong at the suppier end before front line staff are told. A week or so we had a problem with VM ( tbh pretty rare). The support guy started on the usual route, then halted and said something along the lines of "actually my colleagues are getting a lot of calls about this too, hold on". Then he went away for a couple of minutes and when he returned he's spoken to his boss, who'd checked....And you can guess..
"[...] this time lag hasnt changed for years, no idea why they cant update their status update process"
UK. We recently had a power cut - seconds afterwards the wired phone on the master socket started ringing. A recorded message told me there was a known unscheduled outage. Further button pushes accessed more details. Neighbours with mobile numbers received text messages.
Apparently their web site gave an estimated time window for power to be restored - and it was actually back before that.
Now that is a useful advance in the use of technology - by Eon and/or the grid management.
Hope they have planned what to do if the outage affects enough people to overload the phone systems.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
