Author Topic: More istock server problems (Read 24952 times)

sc · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2010, 16:06 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 12, 2010, 11:56

Uploading is back!

Uploading is turned off again!

crazychristina · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2010, 16:08 »

Quote from: sc on April 12, 2010, 16:06

Quote from: gostwyck on April 12, 2010, 11:56
Uploading is back!

Uploading is turned off again!

For another 24 hours

franky242 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2010, 16:13 »

Argh, I wonder how they will deal with their 15 images/week upload slots....

cthoman · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2010, 16:14 »

It was good I got mine in earlier today. Sometimes you get lucky, I guess.

sharply_done · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2010, 16:43 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 12, 2010, 16:14

It was good I got mine in earlier today. Sometimes you get lucky, I guess.

Or unlucky - they undoubtedly had a very good reason for turning it back off!

PixelBitch · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2010, 17:04 »

They really should allow us 2 to 3 weeks worth at once...but will they do that? It's like cell phone plans where you lose unused minutes...maybe we should be allowed to carry over unused slots? Will they do that...not likely!

Quote from: franky242 on April 12, 2010, 16:13

Argh, I wonder how they will deal with their 15 images/week upload slots....

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2010, 17:05 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 12, 2010, 16:43

... they undoubtedly had a very good reason for turning it back off!

Hmm. They thought they'd fixed the problem __ and they hadn't.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2010, 17:08 »

Quote from: PixelBitch on April 12, 2010, 17:04

They really should allow us 2 to 3 weeks worth at once...but will they do that? It's like cell phone plans where you lose unused minutes...maybe we should be allowed to carry over unused slots? Will they do that...not likely!

Quote from: franky242 on April 12, 2010, 16:13
Argh, I wonder how they will deal with their 15 images/week upload slots....

There seems to be a backlog with the queue just now, especially for exclusives, so I wouldn't think they'll roll over, but who knows?

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #33 on:** April 13, 2010, 00:53 »

I can't believe how incompetent IS are, does one power cut really cause all these problems? IS seem completely unable to maintain a stable site.

FD · « **Reply #34 on:** April 13, 2010, 05:34 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 12, 2010, 16:43

Or unlucky - they undoubtedly had a very good reason for turning it back off!

Global warming. No doubt.

cathyslife · « **Reply #35 on:** April 13, 2010, 07:44 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 13, 2010, 00:53

I can't believe how incompetent IS are, does one power cut really cause all these problems? IS seem completely unable to maintain a stable site.

Especially since this has happened before. The time I remember it happened a couple of years ago, they said that they were going to mirror the site somewhere else. I guess I thought they meant somewhere else, out of range of the severe snowstorms. I didn't realize they meant just down the block.

FD · « **Reply #36 on:** April 13, 2010, 09:12 »

I had sales every day on IS, even when the server was out for a couple of hours. That means IS gives priority to the buyers end, not to the contributors end. I would be worried if it was the other way round. You can get virtually 100% uptime for a site if you mirror/synchronize all on geographically different data centers, for a hefty cost. Is that worth it? (it will show in the commissions).

Ploink · « **Reply #37 on:** April 13, 2010, 09:20 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 13, 2010, 09:12

You can get virtually 100% uptime for a site if you mirror/synchronize all on geographically different data centers, for a hefty cost. Is that worth it? (it will show in the commissions).

Yeah, they'd probably lower the commissions to 20% - no, wait...

Maybe I'm too negative, but things like the current server problems let me fear the worst when they announce "a major site overhaul sometimes this year..."

cathyslife · « **Reply #38 on:** April 13, 2010, 09:23 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 13, 2010, 09:12

I had sales every day on IS, even when the server was out for a couple of hours. That means IS gives priority to the buyers end, not to the contributors end. I would be worried if it was the other way round. You can get virtually 100% uptime for a site if you mirror/synchronize all on geographically different data centers, for a hefty cost. Is that worth it? (it will show in the commissions).

Yes, buyers are the priority. But one of the problems it is causing is that thumbnails are not showing in portfolios. That would be a problem for the buyer searching for photos.

I find it hard to believe that a company of this size wouldn't have a backup server in another part of the country/world, away from major snowstorms. As far as it showing in the commissions...doesn't it already?

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #39 on:** April 13, 2010, 10:34 »

And why would a power cut during a snow storm cause so much disruption anyway? And why can't they fix it? With all the profit IS make you'd think they could maintain a stable site.

cathyslife · « **Reply #40 on:** April 13, 2010, 10:46 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 13, 2010, 10:34

With all the profit IS make you'd think they could maintain a stable site.

Typically, from what I know, this is priority #1 for companies making huge profits from a website.

stockastic · « **Reply #41 on:** April 13, 2010, 11:20 »

Sites like IStock typically don't do their own hosting - they pay a hosting company which operates a big server farm. The hosting company provides - or at least promises - redundancy, automatic server fail-over, backup, high bandwidth, uninterruptible power, and armed protection in the event of war or revolution. Ok, I made up that last one.

Does anyone know if this is true for IStock and if so, who their hosting company is?

cathyslife · « **Reply #42 on:** April 13, 2010, 12:26 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 13, 2010, 11:20

Sites like IStock typically don't do their own hosting - they pay a hosting company which operates a big server farm. The hosting company provides - or at least promises - redundancy, automatic server fail-over, backup, high bandwidth, uninterruptible power, and armed protection in the event of war or revolution. Ok, I made up that last one.

Does anyone know if this is true for IStock and if so, who their hosting company is?

From things that have been said in the past by IS regarding problems, I have the impression they have their own servers. But I don't know for a fact.

crazychristina · « **Reply #43 on:** April 13, 2010, 14:45 »

IIRC isock didn't start life as a business but as a community sharing site. I think this is both their strength and their weakness.

FD · « **Reply #44 on:** April 15, 2010, 12:24 »

1.30am Taiwan time.

Quote

503 error - Thanks for visiting iStockphoto.
The site is unavailable right now but we'll be up and running soon.

Yeah right. Luckily, I'll buy my 3/4 daily photos as usual from Dreamstime. Local Taipeh time 1.30am. Deadline is 2am for media assembled in India and published in Europe. Good luck iStock, you are the best. I just need a reliable service, be it with pixel distortions and rough featherings.

sharpshot · « **Reply #45 on:** April 15, 2010, 12:57 »

Reading their blog, they have been having problems for a week now. Perhaps they have more problems than other sites because they have more traffic but they should have more money to spend sorting it out.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #46 on:** April 15, 2010, 13:00 »

They reported to be paying well over a million a week to contributors so they're going to be making a lot more than that, buy some IT knowledge and get it fixed properly.

SNP · « **Reply #47 on:** April 15, 2010, 13:01 »

this kind of prolonged server issue should be unacceptable at this level. Getty is making so much from iStock, they really need to get some systems in place that can handle the traffic and that can work redundantly in the event of such an outage. this kind of lost business is absurd, not to mention the increased traffic generated by the 10 year Twitter event. that kind of viral marketing is priceless and potential clients wandering over to have a look are bumping into 503.

stockastic · « **Reply #48 on:** April 15, 2010, 13:16 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on April 15, 2010, 13:01

this kind of prolonged server issue should be unacceptable at this level. Getty is making so much from iStock, they really need to get some systems in place that can handle the traffic and that can work redundantly in the event of such an outage.

It's possible that these problems were actually caused by Getty.

When a big company buys a little company, they often force the little company to switch over to vendors/suppliers/service providers used by the big company. All in the name of cost savings and efficiency, of course, but sometimes really because the big company already has contracts with these providers. So maybe Getty forced IS to consolidate their IT group, switch to a different hosting company, etc. Of course, if something like this were happening, no one at Getty or IS would ever acknowledge it.

cthoman · « **Reply #49 on:** April 15, 2010, 13:53 »

It's all that Canadian maple syrup gumming up the servers.

Just kidding Canada, I love you.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: More istock server problems (Read 24952 times)

sc

crazychristina

franky242

cthoman

sharply_done

PixelBitch

gostwyck

ShadySue

vlad_the_imp

FD

cathyslife

FD

Ploink

cathyslife

vlad_the_imp

cathyslife

stockastic

cathyslife

crazychristina

FD

sharpshot

vlad_the_imp

SNP

stockastic

cthoman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors