Thread: QuadraNet Century Datacenter - High Datcenter Temperature

For those with QuadraNet in their Century Datacenter looks like they are having issues with the chiller resulting in high datacenter temperature.

Our gear is reporting 90F+ on the inlet and 100F+ on the outlet. We noticed the issue at at 5:45AM local time and as of this posting no fix yet (6+ hours).

Thats correct i have outage issues from like 4 hours ago

any news for when they will fix the issue ?

Can I request compensation for yesterday's 12-hour QuadraNet outage?

The entire Full Rack was down due to high temperatures yesterday at the Quadranet LAX data center.

The outage lasted up to 12 hours, and afterward, I faced network issues. Additionally, some servers failed and part of the databases were lost because all the servers were shut down abruptly without prior email notification or alert.

Threads merged.

Originally Posted by Tawdeb

Can I request compensation for yesterday's 12-hour QuadraNet outage?

The entire Full Rack was down due to high temperatures yesterday at the Quadranet LAX data center.

The outage lasted up to 12 hours, and afterward, I faced network issues. Additionally, some servers failed and part of the databases were lost because all the servers were shut down abruptly without prior email notification or alert.

Are you a dedicated server customer or colo customer? Speaking from experience, the colo contract we have outlines specific SLA for power (100%) and networking (99.99%). Nothing on cooling.

I am curious to hear feedback and suggestions from others on WHT how they have approached dealing with datacenters (does not have to be QuadraNet). What has been everyone's experience when their provider experiences these sorts of issues and you are try to get compensation or even break a long term contract.

FYI: It appears QuadraNet resolved the issue yesterday around 12:30PM (local time). That is when temperature sensors within our rack started reporting a noticeable decrease in hot air coming from the cold isle. It would take a few hours after that for levels to return back to normal low 70F.

I was working in a data center some years ago that suffered a similar issue. Their SLA was structured so compensation for damages was limited to a percentage of their downtime as it related to their monthly recurring charges. They lost a good number of long term clients as a result.

I have been a Colo client at the Quadranet data center for 7 years now, and this is a major issue that has caused loss of clients and partial loss of some databases, as all servers were forcibly shut down, resulting in the failure of some of my database servers and partial data loss.


ُThink to move away or sell my hardware when my contract end in Aug

@Gesundheit

i have question if you can email me at tawdeb at gmail

Thanks

Originally Posted by SenseiSteve

I was working in a data center some years ago that suffered a similar issue. Their SLA was structured so compensation for damages was limited to a percentage of their downtime as it related to their monthly recurring charges. They lost a good number of long term clients as a result.

I'm not sure I'm reading this right....

Compensation being a percentage of the monthly fee's, that correlated to the amount of downtime in question (by my read), what's unusual about that/what would people expect?

Originally Posted by porcupine

I'm not sure I'm reading this right....

Compensation being a percentage of the monthly fee's, that correlated to the amount of downtime in question (by my read), what's unusual about that/what would people expect?

I believe that is industry standard. A percent of your monthly fees based on the number of hours of downtime not to exceed one full month of your cost.

Originally Posted by Felipe - Limestone

I believe that is industry standard. A percent of your monthly fees based on the number of hours of downtime not to exceed one full month of your cost.

It is -- hence my confusion regarding SenseiSteve's post.

Originally Posted by porcupine

I'm not sure I'm reading this right....

Compensation being a percentage of the monthly fee's, that correlated to the amount of downtime in question (by my read), what's unusual about that/what would people expect?

We're talking about clients who were paying tens of thousands monthly who incurred thousands of dollars in lost revenue. No way would any compensation for monthly recurring charges
cover their losses. The proof was in the pudding when they migrated elsewhere.

Originally Posted by SenseiSteve

We're talking about clients who were paying tens of thousands monthly who incurred thousands of dollars in lost revenue. No way would any compensation for monthly recurring charges
cover their losses. The proof was in the pudding when they migrated elsewhere.

I guess I'm just a little muddy on "They lost a good number of long term clients as a result."

It makes it sound as though the provider should have done something differently/would have netted a different result?

Originally Posted by porcupine

I guess I'm just a little muddy on "They lost a good number of long term clients as a result."

It makes it sound as though the provider should have done something differently/would have netted a different result?

I'm fully aware of what the industry standard is, but when we're talking about real money in lost revenue, that doesn't ease the client's pain or encourage long term trust that the data center is properly managed. And yes, that provider could have and should have done something different, which would have then netted a less negative result.

Originally Posted by SenseiSteve

that provider could have and should have done something different, which would have then netted a less negative result.

... And that was specifically my question, what do you think they should have done?

Prorated credit has always been the standard.

But we are probably forgetting what OVH did when their data center got burned. For good or bad, they set an example in front of end users.

Now, OVH is a large company. Not everyone is OVH, so it is understandable that the SLA will vary from provider to provider.

Originally Posted by MechanicWeb-shoss

But we are probably forgetting what OVH did when their data center got burned. For good or bad, they set an example in front of end users.

I would wager the vast majority of people have no idea what OVH did, unless they were a customer directly impacted by the event (I certainly have no idea).

That said, many people do know about the fire, which does say a lot to the efficacy of what SLA credits actually do/do not accomplish.

Originally Posted by porcupine

I would wager the vast majority of people have no idea what OVH did, unless they were a customer directly impacted by the event (I certainly have no idea).

That said, many people do know about the fire, which does say a lot to the efficacy of what SLA credits actually do/do not accomplish.

Yeah. No amount of money can compensate for data loss.

However, I was surprised when many users stayed with them even after this incident. I don't fully recall, but I believe they provided three months of account credit.

Now, when one of these users faces downtime elsewhere, they might expect the same. Not that they are entitled to. That's all I am saying.

Originally Posted by MechanicWeb-shoss

I was surprised when many users stayed with them even after this incident. I don't fully recall, but I believe they provided three months of account credit.

I mean that's not too hard to believe if you've just burned a facility to the ground, likely a cheap option compared to the other risks.

That said, I suspect it's not why people would have stayed. OVH has a unique spot in the market, there are few comparable providers anywhere near their price point, volume, etc. Customers buying from OVH mostly acknowledge the inherit risk already, so people with legitimate/realistic concern, probably already had DR options in their back pocket, etc.

Originally Posted by porcupine

OVH has a unique spot in the market, there are few comparable providers anywhere near their price point, volume, etc.

That's true.

Customers buying from OVH mostly acknowledge the inherit risk already, so people with legitimate/realistic concern, probably already had DR options in their back pocket, etc.

You would wish. Many who stayed had their backup servers in the same data center, and OVH itself had its VPS/cloud backups in the same data center. This resulted in total data loss for these users.

Originally Posted by porcupine

I guess I'm just a little muddy on "They lost a good number of long term clients as a result."

It makes it sound as though the provider should have done something differently/would have netted a different result?

Most people like a preferred treatment. If you are a good client you expect more.
A lot has been lost, especially good and proper behavior. Courtesy goes a long way and costs little to maintain.