What Happened To Hotmail? 32
Blastercbi1 asks: "I have an e-mail account with Hotmail and use it for all my personal e-mails and some business e-mails. The last time I was able to Log in was last Thursday. I waited two days (got used to the frequent short outages that Hotmail had) and still nothing. Finally I decided to contact Hotmail support. Well... I just couldn't. They just had one phone line which was down. And a bunch of automated e-mail support. I just would like to know if someone else had this problem and how they dealt with it. The only information I could find on this topic was at:
news.cnet.com . And from what I read, I have a feeling I'm in for a bad surprise!
(First thing I'll do when and if I get my account back is backup all my stuff and get an account with Yahoo!!)" Sounds like a good idea. Anyone have any more news about recent Hotmail outages?
More info (Score:1)
You get what you pay for. (Score:1)
hrm (Score:1)
--
jojo
No problems here. (Score:1)
Jack
Well, it got bought by Microsoft... (Score:2)
How it all works... (Score:1)
For starters, the first rule I learned (the hard way) was to have as few failure points as possible. This means _no_ centralized databases. EVER. A centralized database is your worst nightmare waiting to happen because when it does fail, and it happens more than you would think even if you are running overpriced "fault-tolerant" servers and database software (just ask EBay..), then the entire system is down. Having a component failure take out 5% of your users it a lot better than having it take out 100% of your users.
The key concept to grasp here is to design a system so that it degrades gracefully when it begins to fail. That means that instead of just locking up when a key box dies your system will continue working (albeit a little slower) and you have time to investigate the problem rather than having to hit a panic button. Remember that we are talking about mail here, so if you lose your account database for even a few hours you are going to be unable to accept incoming mail during this downtime and when you come back up you will get hammered by queued messages. Swarms of little boxes are the only way to do something like this.
The swarm scales up very well on a $/user basis and is much more tolerant of failures than any centralized system. The swarm gives you much more flexibility in dealing with the daily traffic flux because it is trivial too add a few more cheap boxes or to re-task a box with a simple reboot instead of having to spend a lot of energy fixing the one box that everything else is depending on.
The other problem with your approach is that there are not many systems that can handle the sort of load and volume we are talking about. Those that are available are extremely expensive. A service that only gets revenue from ad banners does not stay in business unless it figures out how to get the best performance for the least amount of money.
As for Hotmail's troubles I am guessing that earlier posters are correct: Hotmail probably had a catastrophic disk failure on a key system and no backups, once that happens you start throwing the disks into other boxes and trying to do a sector-by-sector repair or recovery (a very slow and unpleasant process.) This is the sort of nightmare scenario that caused me to fear every 3am phone call or alarm page; eventually one of the major services was going to step on this particular landmine and I am sooooooo happy that something like that did not happen on my watch...
jim
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:1)
Look at it here on ZD Net [zdnet.com]
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Whoops. My pseudo-dislexia presented it to me as "1%". Not like it makes any difference - "BFD, only a third of a million people can't get their mail." That really shows a lot more concern for customers.
> And that's not many when you consider that Napster removed that many accounts from a _much_ smaller userbase.
Which has precisely nothing to do with it. Napster was reacting to a legal challenge; Hotmail is (not) reacting to a technical challenge that could easily be fixed by a management that cared enough. (As I mentioned previously, at worst it would require spending a bit of money.)
As an aside, it might not be fair to criticise Microsoft in any case. Does anyone know whether Hotmail is run by MS employees? Or is it just a separate company that they 0wn but do not directly operate? I notice that the media are taking questions to MS and getting their answers there, but that might not reflect the way Hotmail is actually operated.
--
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:2)
No problem - wackos are supposed to feel at home on Slashdot.
> It really doesn't seem too far-fetched to image that they would go to quite a bit of trouble to encourage this. And by running FreeBSD servers they also discredit a competetor as well.
I'm sure you're right about the kind of thing they would do, but I don't think this is it. If it is, it's being handled clumsily even by Microsoft standards.
What I am expecting is a scenario something like this: Some medium-sized company decides to switch to Linux. They make a big fuss over it, and make sure all the news sites talk about it off and on for several weeks or months. Then the big day comes, they cut over, and - surprise! - they have all kind of strange problems. They give up, and throw out Linux in favor of W2K. Since their Linux plan has been all over the press, everyone wants to know what happened. They spill their guts, warn everyone to stay away from Linux, and heartily thank MS for being there with a safety net. End of story.
Except that MS will handle it with their typical lack of understanding of the internet, where someone posts the story to Slashdot, the gurus read it and poke holes in it big enough to pass Bill's bank account through, and the whole thing ends up stinking as much as Mindcraft did.
I thought it was actually happening a few months back when a small company tried Linux and gave up, but I don't think that was a Microsoft-sponsored event, because there wasn't enough media coverage and one of the principals was too forthright about what they had done wrong and why they had failed.
I'm still expecting this play, though. It would be the next logical step for Microsoft, and they haven't made any big anti-Linux plays for quite a while now.
--
Re:Hmmm (Score:4)
It's really bizarre. Some of the (few) news articles on the subject seem to imply that your account is associated with a particular server, and that when that server is down you're screwed. No rollover. (Perhaps the stories left the wrong impression; it's perfectly reasonable that an account would be associated with a single disks, in which case a drive failure would put you out of the ring.)
What's really bizzare is that whatever the problem is, it shouldn't run for a reported 10 days (and counting?). If it's a bad drive, you replace it, restore the backups, and you're back in business a few hours later. If it's a bad server, you fail the accounts over to another one and you're back in business a few hours later. Or even buy another fsckin' server, if it's something with as high a profile as Hotmail.
Truly, it's beyond comprehension. Unless it was a simple drive failure, discovery that there were no backups, and an unwillingness to admit it. Unfortunately, this not only would explain the otherwise bizarre circumstances, but is also true to form for Microsoft's manner of operations.
Other things that show Microsoft's {cluelessness, lack-of-concern} are the outrageous claim that "less than one-half of 1 percent of its 67 million users" are affected (as if up to 670,000 customers didn't matter), and the text of the automated response from the help desk, which says [quoting from memory] that "the temporary inconvenience is so we can enhance the system to serve you more efficiently" (how much efficiency will it take to make up for 10 days' outage and a loss of data?).
Also, for better or worse, that last [pseudo-]quote seems to imply that the problem is nothing so simple (and understandable, though inexcusable) as a simple loss of a disk drive.
I can't help wonder whether they were trying to "upgrade" to W63K.
--
Demand better reliability. Free is not an excuse. (Score:2)
The reality is that Hotmail is not free. You view banner ads, you give up demographics information, and you put up with having numerous partner services pitched at you.
I work at a company that also does web based e-mail -- cobranded to your site's e-mail domain and look&feel... This service is free for end users, and free for web sites.
Our attitude is that it is unacceptable for even 1 e-mail to be lost. Downtime is unacceptable -- although admittedly we've had our fair share.
We strive for excellence in reliability, and availability. Why? Because our users (several million), are entrusting us with the most important means of communication on the Internet.
It is my perspective that downtimes like this are unacceptable: you *are* paying us -- with information, in many ways a more valuable commodity than money.
Demand more for your demographics and your time. You deserve it.
-JF
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:1)
I don't want to sound like a complete waco but... Microsoft puts a lot of time and effort into discrediting the open source movement and one of the most important tenants of their FUD is "If it's free you can't trust it." It really doesn't seem too far-fetched to image that they would go to quite a bit of trouble to encourage this. And by running FreeBSD servers they also discredit a competetor as well.
Re:330,000 Hotmail Users Down (Score:1)
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:2)
More likely microsoft is waiting until the next hotmail upgrade to move it over to several thousand w2k boxes and putti advertisments everywhere saying how its now 20 times better.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
Maybe you shouldnt be complaining about Microsoft if you cant get _your_ math right. One percent of 67 million is 670 thousand, one half of one percent of 67 million is 335 thousand. And that's not many when you consider that Napster removed that many accounts from a _much_ smaller userbase.
Mark Duell
Yahoo Mail (Score:1)
Hmmm (Score:2)
And, do you mean to tell me you haven't backed that stuff up anyway? What, you actually trust Microsoft to do something right? Sheesh. Newbie. ;-)
Anyway, I like Hotmail; I like being able to check my email from anywhere I can find an internet connection. The longest downtime I've had was 12-14 hours once. They've lost and restored my messages (all of them) twice. They are notorious for locking people out of accounts that are too large. They obviously have some problems with spam. If they ever try to move their backend servers to NT again, I will probably be screwed.
That said, I like Hotmail. They pioneered free webmail, and they remain one of the better free webmail services out there. That doesn't mean you should trust them. It's fricking Microsoft we're talking about here.
Re:330,000(??!) Hotmail Users Down (Score:1)
ouch. Since when is the last time you trusted the PR group?
--
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yahoo Mail (Score:1)
330,000 Hotmail Users Down (Score:4)
The article brings up a good point: Hotmail is a free service run by Microsoft. Those two words put togethere don't exactly spell 'reliability'... I don't exactly have important data on my Hotmail account (just some attachments), and if Hotmail goes down for a week, I wouldn't be too concerned, because I don't get most of my mail there, nor do I get any important mail, for that matter. I mostly use it as dumping grounds for webpages I need to register for (not Slashdot, of course).
I would read The Register's article. It brings up good points I don't necessarily need to repeat.
anti-hotmail users rant (Score:2)
He also thinks it's amazing because he can check his email from anywhere. I said to him, have you even heard about/tried any of the other services? No. So how do you know Hotmail is so good? Well, it's M$ he said. At which point I decided it might be easier to just not say anything at all. He also casually mentioned that he has over 100 spam addresses blocked at Hotmail. On my 5 non-hotmail addresses, I'm lucky to get 1 spam message a week.
And you know what the worst thing is ? He was asking me yesterday about what I knew about MCSE - he's thinking about doing it. Sigh...
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
Hotmail is (not) reacting to a technical challenge that could easily be fixed by a management that cared enough
Get some RAID and kill those bugs!
-- LoonXTall
hehehe... (Score:1)
Jsut the sort of thing you'd expect from Microsoft tech support, eh?
Hotmail has that "Kleenex" status (Score:1)
Re:You get what you pay for. (Score:1)
Talk about "ANTI-TRUST" M$ woul be basically killing themselves if they did this and it got out. No one would be dumb enough to believe anything that came out of them again.
"Today reports began coming in about whether or not Microsoft, the Redmond, WA software giant, sabotaged its own free email service, Hotmail to bolster acceptance of their flagship computer operating system, Windows 2000.
Sources, wishing to remain Anonymous, close to Microsoft state that internal Hotmail employees were directed to cause intermittent service outages in the wake of the announcement to move to an alternative operating system known as FreeBSD.
Microsoft has just released a statement detailing their plans to move to Windows 2000 as to ensure that these inconvieniences do not re-occur.
"Our efforts to scale FreeBSD to handle the 70 million users we have failed due to certain core functionality that is missing in FreeBSD, but is provided by Windows 2000. Based on our new architecture - these events will not be repeated." -- says one Hotmail spokesman.
My problems..... (Score:1)
its happened three or four times, not fun I can tell u.
M$'s exuse, the server holding my account details was down for some reason, this went on for a period of 24 hours at the longest incident. Strangly enough my other account hasn't had any problems.
Ohh well.....
Da Cr33p
Re:anti-hotmail users rant (Score:1)
He was asking me yesterday about what I knew about MCSE - he's thinking about doing it.
Tell him to go for it! Sounds like he'd fit right in.
------
Hotmail moving to W2k? (Score:1)
Me too (Score:1)
What's so great about Hotmail? (Score:1)
Besides uReach, Yahoo!Mail [yahoo.com] is the only one I use for "real" mail because I'm hooked by the rest of Yahoo's personalized services, esp. Yahoo!Companion. The rest are just "throwaway's", good for pseudononymous transactions. If you're placing a lot of trust in Hotmail not to lose your data, or keep it secure, or always be available...I think you're being foolish.
An aplogy would have been nice (Score:1)