Provider Uptime Report March (3/05)

Trip · 3 Apr 2005, 04:31 PM

OK, here are the numbers I have for March from Host-Tracker. HT was very accurate this month in displaying actual downtime versus simple net congestion. 15 services are monitored below and ranked on uptime:

KEY:
Company Name - URL Monitored
Uptime% - Min/Avg/Max Response Time (sec) - Access Failure Time/# of Failures

FuseMail, LLC. - http://fuse1.fusemail.net
100.00% - 0.07/3.8/164 - 0 min(s) 0 sec(s)/0

Fadmail.com - http://www.fadmail.com
100.00% - 0.08/5.2/248 - 0 min(s) 0 sec(s)/0

GMail by Google - http://www.gmail.com
99.99+% - 0.05/5.0/247 - 1 min(s) 12 sec(s)/2

Cwazy.co.uk's Zapo.net - http://www.zapo.net
99.99+% - 0.23/5.6/255 - 1 min(s) 24 sec(s)/1

Yahoo! Inc. - http://mail.yahoo.com
99.99% - 0.08/5.0/246 - 3 min(s) 54 sec(s)/3

FastMail IP Partners - http://www.fastmail.fm/mail
99.99% - 0.12/4.0/164 - 4 min(s) 42 sec(s)/18

BurntMail - http://www.burntmail.com
99.98% - 0.17/4.1/161 - 8 min(s) 59 sec(s)/12

MSN Hotmail - http://www.hotmail.com
99.97% - 0.06/5.2/247 - 14 min(s) 28 sec(s)/9

Tuffmail - http://webmail.tuffmail.net
99.95% - 0.08/5.3/247 - 22 min(s) 23 sec(s)/12

MailSnare.net - http://webmail.mailsnare.net
99.92% - 0.09/3.9/284 - 36 min(s) 37 sec(s)/13

bluebottle solutions pty ltd. - http://www.bluebottle.com
99.41% - 0.01/5.0/245 - 4 hour(s) 13 min(s)/192

runbox AS - http://aibo.runbox.com
99.31% - 0.28/5.1/228 - 4 hour(s) 59 min(s)/358

PromptPost Project - http://mail3.promptpost.com/mail/src/login.php
98.17% - 0.06/6.2/299 - 11 hour(s) 44 min(s)/185

Virus Free Email - http://www.vfemail.net/horde/imp/login.php
97.70% - 0.22/6.1/250 - 15 hour(s) 56 min(s)/227

**Monitored only since 3/10**
United Email Systems - http://www.unitedemailsystems.com
99.28% - 0.09/7.8/260 - 3 hour(s) 41 min(s)/64

I would say everyone from MailSnare on up had great service. Unfortunately for bluebottle on down, things weren't so hot. FuseMail and Fadmail cleared with perfect 100%s. The GMail and Zapo blips were probably traffic related. And being a user, I'm slightly underwhelmed with Runbox; I hope their new hardware helps. What do you think?

Best,
Trip

ibcsweb · 3 Apr 2005, 05:48 PM

Nice to see fusemail at the top. I have been looking at them as a possible for my main email. They just need to sort out the syncing issuse they have.

I would say from those figures that anyone with a gmail account got good value. I just hope they stay as reliable. Really useful to be able to see direct comparisons like those. If they could be taken over say a year once a month and then averaged out accross the 12 months that would be nice.

**Sherry** · 4 Apr 2005, 10:03 AM

Thanks Trip. I really appreciate the info you're providing each time you post the stats.

Again, thanks

Sherry

rbpickup · 4 Apr 2005, 10:13 AM

Thanks for the stats Trip. Bluebottle is currently upgrading its infrastructure, so I am sure we will see a marked improvement in uptime over the coming months.

Robert

dcabbar · 5 Apr 2005, 03:24 PM

Hi,

Do you mind explaining the methodology you used? Like, where did you test them from, how did you test them, etc?

Because, I have been testing the SMTP services on some of these myself from multiple locations, and the results I am getting are quite different than what you gave here.

For example, in my case, FuseMail had down times for about 40 minutes on March 16th, and 1 downtime for about 5 minutes on March 24th. Whereas, MailSnare was up 100% both on March 16th and March 24th, and RunBox was up 100% on March 24th (I started testing runbox after March 23rd).

Furthermore, it looks like you are testing the HTTP, but what is the point of testing their HTTP where you should actually be testing the SMTP services instead to measure how reliable their EMAIL service is??? Afterall, these companies provide e-mail services, right?

Thanks...

Trip · 8 Apr 2005, 02:45 PM

Hi dcabbar,

If you search for "Host Tracker" you can learn more about how they test. They are currently up to 18 global locations.

I totally understand, and have always been aware, of the fact that HTTP monitoring is NOT representative of smtp, imap, etc. uptime. As I have seen from experience over the years, however, more often that not when a mail provider's webmail access and/or other http goes down, so too do other services/ports (smtp, etc.). So I am using HTTP as the closest thing I can get to multi-port monitoring, without having to pay for it.

So, yes, it's good to look at this testing as possibly misrepresentative of true service uptime, but one can rest assured that a majority of times when HTTP fails, so too does all mail access. At least that has been my experience and I have used email quite extensively over the past 10 years.

Best,
Trip

xbot · 8 Apr 2005, 10:23 PM

Very nice Trip. I'm sure both Yahoo! and Gmail downtime was congestion related, because both have numerous servers that would be difficult to break down all at once

Fahd · 9 Apr 2005, 10:57 AM

Nice, glad to see our web servers are running well. Cant wait to see Aprils now.

3 Apr 2005, 04:31 PM	#1
Trip Master of the @ Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,347 Representative of: Runbox.com	Provider Uptime Report March (3/05) OK, here are the numbers I have for March from Host-Tracker. HT was very accurate this month in displaying actual downtime versus simple net congestion. 15 services are monitored below and ranked on uptime: KEY: Company Name - URL Monitored Uptime% - Min/Avg/Max Response Time (sec) - Access Failure Time/# of Failures FuseMail, LLC. - http://fuse1.fusemail.net 100.00% - 0.07/3.8/164 - 0 min(s) 0 sec(s)/0 Fadmail.com - http://www.fadmail.com 100.00% - 0.08/5.2/248 - 0 min(s) 0 sec(s)/0 GMail by Google - http://www.gmail.com 99.99+% - 0.05/5.0/247 - 1 min(s) 12 sec(s)/2 Cwazy.co.uk's Zapo.net - http://www.zapo.net 99.99+% - 0.23/5.6/255 - 1 min(s) 24 sec(s)/1 Yahoo! Inc. - http://mail.yahoo.com 99.99% - 0.08/5.0/246 - 3 min(s) 54 sec(s)/3 FastMail IP Partners - http://www.fastmail.fm/mail 99.99% - 0.12/4.0/164 - 4 min(s) 42 sec(s)/18 BurntMail - http://www.burntmail.com 99.98% - 0.17/4.1/161 - 8 min(s) 59 sec(s)/12 MSN Hotmail - http://www.hotmail.com 99.97% - 0.06/5.2/247 - 14 min(s) 28 sec(s)/9 Tuffmail - http://webmail.tuffmail.net 99.95% - 0.08/5.3/247 - 22 min(s) 23 sec(s)/12 MailSnare.net - http://webmail.mailsnare.net 99.92% - 0.09/3.9/284 - 36 min(s) 37 sec(s)/13 bluebottle solutions pty ltd. - http://www.bluebottle.com 99.41% - 0.01/5.0/245 - 4 hour(s) 13 min(s)/192 runbox AS - http://aibo.runbox.com 99.31% - 0.28/5.1/228 - 4 hour(s) 59 min(s)/358 PromptPost Project - http://mail3.promptpost.com/mail/src/login.php 98.17% - 0.06/6.2/299 - 11 hour(s) 44 min(s)/185 Virus Free Email - http://www.vfemail.net/horde/imp/login.php 97.70% - 0.22/6.1/250 - 15 hour(s) 56 min(s)/227 Monitored only since 3/10 United Email Systems - http://www.unitedemailsystems.com 99.28% - 0.09/7.8/260 - 3 hour(s) 41 min(s)/64 I would say everyone from MailSnare on up had great service. Unfortunately for bluebottle on down, things weren't so hot. FuseMail and Fadmail cleared with perfect 100%s. The GMail and Zapo blips were probably traffic related. And being a user, I'm slightly underwhelmed with Runbox; I hope their new hardware helps. What do you think? Best, Trip

3 Apr 2005, 05:48 PM	#2
ibcsweb Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: UK Posts: 546	Thanks for that Trip Nice to see fusemail at the top. I have been looking at them as a possible for my main email. They just need to sort out the syncing issuse they have. I would say from those figures that anyone with a gmail account got good value. I just hope they stay as reliable. Really useful to be able to see direct comparisons like those. If they could be taken over say a year once a month and then averaged out accross the 12 months that would be nice.

4 Apr 2005, 10:03 AM	#3
Sherry Moderator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: USA Posts: 8,687	Thanks Trip. I really appreciate the info you're providing each time you post the stats. Again, thanks Sherry

4 Apr 2005, 10:13 AM	#4
rbpickup Master of the @ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,957 Representative of: Truedomain.net	Thanks for the stats Trip. Bluebottle is currently upgrading its infrastructure, so I am sure we will see a marked improvement in uptime over the coming months. Robert

5 Apr 2005, 03:24 PM	#5
dcabbar Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 52	Hi, Do you mind explaining the methodology you used? Like, where did you test them from, how did you test them, etc? Because, I have been testing the SMTP services on some of these myself from multiple locations, and the results I am getting are quite different than what you gave here. For example, in my case, FuseMail had down times for about 40 minutes on March 16th, and 1 downtime for about 5 minutes on March 24th. Whereas, MailSnare was up 100% both on March 16th and March 24th, and RunBox was up 100% on March 24th (I started testing runbox after March 23rd). Furthermore, it looks like you are testing the HTTP, but what is the point of testing their HTTP where you should actually be testing the SMTP services instead to measure how reliable their EMAIL service is??? Afterall, these companies provide e-mail services, right? Thanks...

8 Apr 2005, 02:45 PM	#6
Trip Master of the @ Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,347 Representative of: Runbox.com	Hi dcabbar, If you search for "Host Tracker" you can learn more about how they test. They are currently up to 18 global locations. I totally understand, and have always been aware, of the fact that HTTP monitoring is NOT representative of smtp, imap, etc. uptime. As I have seen from experience over the years, however, more often that not when a mail provider's webmail access and/or other http goes down, so too do other services/ports (smtp, etc.). So I am using HTTP as the closest thing I can get to multi-port monitoring, without having to pay for it. So, yes, it's good to look at this testing as possibly misrepresentative of true service uptime, but one can rest assured that a majority of times when HTTP fails, so too does all mail access. At least that has been my experience and I have used email quite extensively over the past 10 years. Best, Trip

8 Apr 2005, 10:23 PM	#7
xbot Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 922 Representative of: xxos.us	Very nice Trip. I'm sure both Yahoo! and Gmail downtime was congestion related, because both have numerous servers that would be difficult to break down all at once

9 Apr 2005, 10:57 AM	#8
Fahd Essential Contributor Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 236 Representative of: Fadmail.com	Nice, glad to see our web servers are running well. Cant wait to see Aprils now.