Talk:Rackspace Technology

Downtime

Is downtime relevant? I'm not sure. Most hosting companies experience downtime at some point, the most common cause being power failure... It just seems unbalanced to mention this against almost a decade of largely problem-free hosting?

As they advertise their business using the message "Zero-Downtime Network" and they promise a 100% uptime guarantee it is very relevant. There are hosting companies who have a lot less downtime, but as Rackspace is attempting to win business by claiming it is a perfect business model in the Uptime area, it should be plain for people to see on Wikipedia that FACT, it is far from perfect.

Plus as someone who has had first hand experience and has a server with rackspace, they do not honour the uptime guarantee.

They also hold you to a contract claiming they are NOT in breach even after downtime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.29.188 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem

The bottom half of the article disappeared after my edit. iots in the html editable material and the diff says i added 318KB. Any ideas. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Downtime Info

The second paragraph under Downtime is incorrect - a pickup truck did hit a transformer outside of the data center, but it did not explode. The first paragraph was taken directly from communication from Rackspace, but the second paragraph wasn't. I work at Rackspace and was there the night this happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rp70x1n (talk • contribs) 18:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the truck struck a transformer, not a generator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.3.128.198 (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech201805 (talk • contribs)

Rewrite?

This is one of the worst written articles i've come across in this industry. While it does have alot of details most of it's from the company itself with alot of references from Rackspace. It appears to be written from a PR standpoint, 'recent events' are never really relevant on WikiPedia. Also the history shows page edit history from ip blocks owned by the company. I think that pretty much sums up who wrote the article and the reason for it's existence is an advertisement. Woods01 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also - whereas Rackspace may be the catchy name of a company, it is also a generic term for space in a 19 inch comms cabinet, and anyone looking for that information is going to have to wade through all of this drivel before they find what they are looking for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.180.190 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that. It is pure drivel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.29.188 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "fanatical support" sentence in introduction

This sentence

"The beginnings of Rackspace's Fanatical Support started once Rackspace realized that no company at the time could fulfill their unique requirements -"

should be removed because:

1) the term "Fanatical Support" has not yet been introduced in the article, so it shouldn't be referred to here. It is described well enough in a later paragraph.

2) The sentence asserts that "no company at the time could fulfill their unique requirements" which is POV.

3) "their unique requirements" makes no sense. Rackspace's unique requirements? What did Rackspace require? This could be rephrased as "the industry's unique requirements" but what are those requirements, and why are they unique?

Leotohill (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

User "Richardyoo" has rewritten the problem sentence as "While most companies focused on the technology end of hosting, Rackspace created its "Fanatical Support" offering to focus on service and support". This addresses my concerns.

Leotohill (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Downtime Info, Revisited

I notice this has been discussed before on the talk page, but those discussions seem to be stale so I'm starting a new one.

I boldly removed the section on downtime, which has since been readded by an IP [1] without addressing the points I made in my edit summary. My feeling on this issue is that it is a minor one. Wikipedia shouldn't be trumpeting the company's guarantee of "zero downtime" (especially without a reliable secondary source discussing it, and neither should the section be only a listing of every single time the company goes down. It seems very much undue weight to me to discuss the matter in great detail. The information is currently in the article, and I won't remove it without further discussion, but I'd love to see more opinions on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the inclusion. The cite given clearly shows this as an SLA with specific refund levels for downtime. Many, if not most, large providers set a 100% uptime SLO/SLA (Dreamhost, for example). I'm not sure why the claim is notable outside of some strong secondary sources stating such, and the odd laundry list of every single outage is very odd. Frankly, if that the extent of outages, this seems more promotional than anything else. Kuru (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Right then since there are no other objections for over a month, then that section will stay removed.

Renaming the article

It appears the name is now officially "Rackspace Technology". Would it make sense to rename the page to match? Aaron Bruce (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)