Operational Uptime

We’ve all heard companies that claim service reliability of “99.9%” or “99.99%” or “5 nines” (meaning 99.999%). But what does that mean?

The fact is that 99.999% uptime is really hard to achieve. On a monthly basis, 99.999% uptime means that your service is “down” for less than 26 seconds. Now, many services skate around this issue with fuzzy definitions of “down”. They might say that “downtime is defined as a majority of mailboxes being unavailable”. So a single mailbox being down might not be considered “downtime”. But as customers, if its your mailbox, that doesn’t sound quite right, does it? We usually have simpler definitions.

Anyway, GMail this morning has been down for 3 hours (at least) on my mailbox. Assuming they operate perfectly for the remainder of the month, that means they’ve dropped to only 99.58% availability this month. And, if they remain up with no downtime for the rest of the year, they’ve already missed the 5-nines, and are struggling at 99.96%! Given the outages I’ve seen, I think they’ve been down for at least 12 hours on my mailbox, so I think they are operating under the 99% level.

Oh well, I shouldn’t beat up on them too much. It is only beta, after all, right? But geez- with the $4B in the bank from their second IPO, I’d think they could ad least get to “two nines”. What about my god-given right to read email now?

Microsoft vs Google in Court

Lawyers spar at Microsoft-Google hearing

You know, this is such a waste of time. How many millions do we have to waste on this stuff? This is a lose-lose situation for Microsoft and Google. Both sides should figure out how to settle this immediately. Either Google should say they just don’t need this guy (because they don’t), or Microsoft should they don’t need this guy (because they don’t) and that they don’t care if he goes to Google (because it doesn’t matter).

That’s probably the best solution – both sides agree to never hire him again.

But the lawyers are advising both sides to take this to court. They probably advise that this is somehow precident setting for future employee hires. Yeah right. The real reason is because that’s how lawyers make money.

GMail down again

I’m really starting to question my use of gmail. It seems pretty unreliable – I can’t tell you how many times it reports, “Gmail is temporarily unavailable. Cross your fingers and try again in a few minutes. We’re sorry for the inconvenience.”

The humor was funny once, when this was an isolated event. But I want to read my email now, and I really don’t have time for this incompetence. Its been down for at least 30 mins now [6:30 to 7am]. Yahoo! Please take me back!

Update – its now 10am, and the service is still down. 3 hours of downtime on a Weds morning. Not good!

Gmail Browser Cache Full Voodoo

Logged into my Gmail account today, and its got a big, red banner across the top which says, “Your browser’s cache is full and may interfere with your Gmail experience.” (Gmails FAQ on this)

Well, thats an interesting statement with lots of implications.

As a software developer, your job when diagnosing problems is to be an investigator. To figure out why something is crashing or why something is slow requires collecting of evidence, analyzing the evidence, and ultimately trying to apply that back to the bug and symptoms. Sometimes, unfortunately, problems are hard to investigate, and even some pretty smart developers can come up with what I would call voodoo explanations. It used to be that people sometimes ran into “compiler bugs” or “optimizer bugs”. But these days, when a developer claims its one of these, its usually a pathetic, last-ditch effort to explain why his code is not working. The compiler bug is just pretty darned unlikely. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw a bug that was actually the compiler’s fault. I’m sure they exist, they are just realy rare. The reason they are unlikely is because there is so much code exercising the compiler that there is just a huge amount of testing on it. If there were a bug, lots of software, not just yours, would be broken.

Gmail’s claim that my browser cache being full also sounds like voodoo to me. I searched around to see if there were any other products claiming performance woes due to the cache, and I can’t find any. I also can’t find any support articles from Microsoft. Now, I could believe a turned off cache could cause problems. But logically, it doesn’t sound right to me that somehow the cache being full is the cause of Google’s troubles. The cache, when full, should rotate out the old content, and new content gets cached. Its a pretty simple algorithm, and if it were broken, wouldn’t most other web applications be suffering as well?

So, gmail, whats the nitty gritty? Do you have empirical evidence? Prove to us this isn’t voodoo engineering!

Lookout Lives

I read the following post over at Gordon’s Tech. Its a nice post with nice things to say about Lookout, but it’s kind of depressing to read! Nobody has died here!

So, its been a long time coming, but its about time that I post a little ad for MSN. 🙂 If you want to know about the future, you’ll want to read this.

On the surface, I can see why people feel that Lookout’s “time has passed”. Lookout is definitely no longer the focus of our team, and if you are a Lookout user, that seems bad. But let’s not pretend that Lookout was better than it was either.

Lookout was a great first generation indexing tool. It was great because it helped solve a real world problem in a reasonable way. In particular, I think it was the first tool of it’s kind which really focused on Outlook first. This was the mind shift which was hard for many search products. Focusing on email-only seems too narrow for many. But Eric and I both think that for a lot of users – outlook is the operating system. You can agree or disagree, but its with that mindset that we built Lookout.

MSN recognized the value of Lookout and bought the product. Users wondered if MSN would re-brand it, or use it as its base for new products, or something else. Some think that MSN killed it. But that is far from the truth. What we decided to do was to leverage the Lookout knowledge, experience, and themes to help build a better product. MSN was already loaded with technology which could easily implement the features, and they would have gotten a lot of it right even without Lookout. But bringing in Lookout seemed like a good way to increase MSN success.

At the same time, Lookout couldn’t have survived on its own. Fast search is much bigger than just Outlook, and frankly, should be in the operating system. The fact that it is not should be (and is) a bit of an embarrassment to all of us at Microsoft. (Note: For those that would ding Microsoft, however, please note that Linux doesn’t have search either! It seems obvious now, but search as a feature of the OS was not obvious.)

In the end, for Lookout to survive, it needed to evolve. And while the exact code of Lookout may not exist in its original form, I think the themes, vision, and future of Lookout very much does still exist within MSN + Windows Desktop Search.

Where things stand now is that most Lookout users have already switched happily to MSN + Windows Desktop Search. It has a lot more features, better indexing, and a better UI. At the same time, I do know that a lot of users think MSN is too heavyweight to replace Lookout. And that seems to be the primary reason for people still using Lookout. We know that. But do you think we like it that way? NO WAY!!! 🙂 We’re fixing it. We have the technology, and more importantly, we have the desire and passion to do it.

The focus on hard-core Outlook integration is continuing as MSN goes forward. I wish I could say these features had made the cut for the first draft of product, but they didn’t fully, and I think that is why some users still prefer Lookout. But as I sit here looking at what is coming from MSN, I can honestly say with conviction for the first time that with the next rev of MSN, there is just no way any users will want to continue using Lookout. The new version of MSN rocks – its so much better – and its not too heavy. And users should also be delighted to know that we probably couldn’t have built this product this quickly from a startup. We needed MSN’s help.

Overall, it’s great that MSN bought Lookout. It’s not the same code as Lookout, and it’s not even the same developers (they are much better than we were!!), but the theme of Lookout is absolutely still part of MSN, and that may have been the most real value that Lookout ever had.

Google Desktop Beta Review

Today Google unveiled its latest beta of the Google Desktop. This is a pretty neat product! They did a nice job of incorporating a few of their already published tools (including Google Desktop Search and Google Deskbar), but they also added a lot of other neat stuff, like the Google Sidebar and Outlook Integration.

Sidebar
The sidebar is a nice idea. The concept is taken utilities such as from Desktop Sidebar, which has been around for a while. But it integrates very well with the Google properties, including email search, web search, web history, picasa, and weather.

So far, I’m liking it quite a lot, and not minding the screen real-estate it consumes. I do plan to remove it, however, because I must remain loyal to my own team 🙂

Outlook Integration
Always interesting to me is Outlook Integration. For the first time, they’ve introduced an Outlook addin for email search! The good news is that its there, and that it even opens up search results in a UI for Outlook with a simple Lookout-like window! The bad news is that its so primitive, you probably would rather stick with MSN Desktop Search or Lookout. Google’s interface doesn’t have the ability to drag&drop, right-click for actions, filter results, select columns other than the 3 they’ve selected for you, view types of results, etc.

But this does show promise! Google finally understands that not everything is best suited in a web UI.

Word-wheeling
Another cool feature to their search is that they’ve added what we call “word-wheeling” to their deskbar. This is a blatant steal from MSN’s product. As you type, it instantly searches the local index for matches on what you’ve typed so far. This gives the user great feedback to visualize results quickly. Great!

On the improvement side, though, I think the feature has UI trouble. First, the window opens in a variable-size. So with each keystroke, the window bounces up and down making it difficult to follow. A fixed sized window would be better, even if there were whitespace. Further, the results in the window are desktop search results. But as soon as you press enter, the desktop search results disappear, and you now see web results, with a new single link to try to find the desktop results.

As we’d expect, Google is anxious to push the user into the web. But when the data is on the hard disk, this creates a few extra clicks.

Spyware
One thing that really bugs me when I install software is when the software changes my desktop settings without asking me. Google’s product automatically changed my default search engine to Google, so that in IE, the “Search” bar now goes to their site. I did not ask for them to do this.

KarmaOne

I replaced all my Google Ads with KarmaOne ads today. KarmaOne is an interesting jobs network where bloggers (like me!) can help promote jobs that may be local to them, and that their blog readers may actually enjoy. You can read KarmaOne’s description of how it works.

I’ll definitely post here if I ever have success with them. I’m not counting on any success, but I like the model, so they are now part of my ever-increasing-popularity blog. And, if you are reading this blog, you probably know me and are living in Silicon Valley. So, if you find it interesting, let me know!