This website made me reconsider if 99.9999% SLA and always online is really that important for lots of websites. I used to self-host my own server in my own apartment, but gave up on that after my internet provider had their first major outage that lasted almost a week. Also I didn't want to worry about the fire hazard, or the server going down when I was traveling etc.

But a solar powered server seems interesting, if the batteries could be made fire safe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I would be curious to know this uptime relative to any other self-hosted sites.

I remember Reddit and Twitter constantly suffering from uptime issues and they were far more decentralized, with modern infrastructure to match.

Is 95.2% all that far out of the realm of expectation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    95% isn't great. I run my own servers on solar and I don't think I've had more than a hourof unexpected downtime in the last 3 years, excluding the usual update reboots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Well, the article did go on to provide better stats once they changed out the panel and battery:

    Since then, the uptime has been 100% (March to September 2020), even though we have added a lot of content by making the website multilingual. This is due to the larger (brand new) battery but also to the better orientation of the smaller solar panel. The battery’s capacity will decline over time, so the higher storage capacity will make it last longer. If the uptime remains 100% through the winter 2020/2021, we will probably downgrade to a 20W solar panel.

  • source
  • parent