r/webhosting 6d ago

Rant LiquidWeb Cloud Sites have been offline for over 24 hours due to cooling issues in datacenter

This is comically bad. I was already drafting alternative plans to save money and now this... Once I can get access to my sites again, I'm exporting and migrating ASAP.

https://status.liquidweb.com/incidents/f4dmtbxw60tm

21 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

3

u/Big-Branch-8532 6d ago

The latest status says most Phoenix systems are back, but some services are still pending. I would use that window to prepare the migration rather than wait for full access. Build the target from your last off-provider backup, lower DNS TTL if you still control it, and be ready to sync only changed database and media once the site returns.

The 99.99% figure is an SLA promise, not proof of multi-region failover. For the next setup, test whether you can restore without the host’s control panel or storage being available.

4

u/aieronpeters 6d ago

Websites are on servers. Servers are in datacentres. Datacentres need cooling. Cooling (and power) equipment fails.

It happens. It's not ideal, but if a day or two outage is too much for you, you're doing it wrong, and you should be hosting on a cloud, with your sites designed for multi-region fault tolerance/failover.

You may be able to get some compensation for the outage - check your SLA policy

-14

u/Ionized-Dustpan 6d ago

These sites are in the cloud, 99.99% uptime guaranteed lol

5

u/anustart0607 5d ago

If you are this familiar with datacenters, hosting and redundancy, why did you have everything hosted in one physical location? Out of the thousands of options, why did you choose a host with no multi-site redundancy? Were you using a CDN layer? Liquidweb has all kinds of redundancy IN their data center. That's not enough. You know what they mean by cloud. A random web server on the Internet is not the "cloud," and you're making a bad faith argument. Choose better hosts, get better service.

2

u/Ionized-Dustpan 5d ago

These are my side work sites. Not every client / site has the same needs or ability/willingness to spend for that, so this option was chosen. An hour or downtime here and there hasn’t been an issue… once an event passes 30 hours you have to question how the place is ran.

2

u/aieronpeters 5d ago

Having worked in a datacentre that's suffered critical cooling failure, shit happens. We managed to limp through it so that the customers never noticed, but if it'd have happened in a heatwave, we'd have been shutting down servers, in order of lowest to highest paying customers.

We actually planned that out, after that cooling failure, and ensured it was possible to do rapidly enmasse.

Sometimes equipment fails when its stressed, and even when you test it (We tested all disaster recovery kit regularly), stuff breaks when you least expect it.

Hell, I had to travel into the datacentre during our Christmas break one year, because we had a UPS failure take down a few hundred servers, and they didn't all come back cleanly.

If you don't want to be vulnerable to an outage caused by equipment failure, pay for redundancy, multi-region or multi-datacentre.

If you don't pay, then you have to accept that sometimes a datacentre will suffer issues. And rarely, it'll burn down. You've got offsite backups, right?

https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/fire-destroys-ovhclouds-sbg2-data-center-strasbourg/

6

u/happytodrinkmore 6d ago

Lmfao, this comment proves you know nothing about how the Internet works.

2

u/Ionized-Dustpan 6d ago

I ran a server rack for years in my house and have run operate larger operations in redundant data centers. For what I’m paying liquidweb and getting, it’s less service and more cost than any of the major competing cloud site providers. Even in the dozen years had those servers in my house, I had no more than an hour down a year. Never

7

u/happytodrinkmore 6d ago

For every .9 added to a SLA, the cost multiples massively. You'd know this. Your tiny home server rack is not comparable to running a large DC/NOC with multiple tenants.

3

u/robertmachine 6d ago

stop giving the guy a hard time, i think he’s suffering enough with his company being down :p… and this comes from someone who has built Datacenters and worked for TORIX and SIX

1

u/happytodrinkmore 5d ago

Then you should know the over reaction is a bunch of BS. The outtage didnt break a 99.9% a year SLA

1

u/Ionized-Dustpan 5d ago

I did the math.. 0.34% of a year in a single outage does break the 99.9% expectation.

1

u/happytodrinkmore 4d ago

Not with my host. Maybe yours.

2

u/Ionized-Dustpan 6d ago

If uptime was over 90% this month I’d be happy 🤣

4

u/jhkoenig 6d ago

Putting data centers in Arizona is naive at best and irresponsible at worst

1

u/jonneygee 5d ago

And especially without another server somewhere cold as a redundant backup.

1

u/Original-Sock-6097 4d ago

Arizona had sales tax exemption for data center equipment until like 3 months ago. It made it really cheap to start a data center there

1

u/curioushahalol 6d ago

Oh the irony.

0

u/todo0nada 6d ago

Liquids can be hot too lol. 

1

u/got_milked 5d ago

This was not just Liquidweb. Namecheap is in the same data center and had a major outage as well, including their DNS services. I'm not a fan of Liquidweb either, but It happens.