Comment by ragall
3 days ago
In our case this was only a month ago, and now we're stuck because management thought it was a good idea to sign a hefty spend commitment.
3 days ago
In our case this was only a month ago, and now we're stuck because management thought it was a good idea to sign a hefty spend commitment.
In our case, we spent to much time of engineer time just to put up with Azure but there’s no good ROI. It took sometime for the upper management to realize Azure is shit and cut the cost
Don't they have an SLA? You can break that open if they don't perform.
To what end? I've never seen an SLA which is clear cut enough to be worth pursuing if you want more than a free t-shirt.
> I've never seen an SLA which is clear cut enough to be worth pursuing if you want more than a free t-shirt.
I have, regularly. I am not sure what kind of business you are running but parties that rely on service providers for critical (primary business process driving) components routinely agree to SLAs with large penalties and the ability to open up an existing contract in case of non-performance. Obviously you would have to be willing to pay for such a service in the first place otherwise there is no point in setting up an SLA, this won't be cheap. But we're definitely not talking about 'free t-shirts' here, more about direct liability, per hour penalties and so on.
2 replies →
Exactly what I was thinking. But then again, from what I've seen, the persons responsible for monitoring uptimes are often much further removed from the C suite in these "committed-spend" companies.