<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2011:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-</id>
  <updated>2011-08-16T17:44:01Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Social Network Downtime in 2008: LinkedIn Up - Twitter Down</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.35-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=13889" title="Social Network Downtime in 2008: LinkedIn Up - Twitter Down" />
    <published>2009-02-17T17:25:25Z</published>
    <updated>2009-02-17T17:37:12Z</updated>
    <title>Social Network Downtime in 2008: LinkedIn Up - Twitter Down</title>
    <summary>According to a new report (PDF) from uptime monitoring service Pingdom, Facebook and MySpace, the two largest players in the social networking market, had very little downtime in 2008. Twitter, whose iconic Fail Whale adorned the service far too often at the beginning of the year, got its act together and was only down for...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Frederic Lardinois</name>
      
    </author>
    
    <category term="News" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img alt="pingdom_social_network_logo.png" src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/pingdom_social_network_logo.png"  />According to a new report (<a href="http://www.pingdom.com/_img/press/pingdom_20090217_social_network_downtime_2008.pdf">PDF</a>) from uptime monitoring service <a href="http://pingdom.com">Pingdom</a>, Facebook and MySpace, the two largest players in the social networking market, had very little downtime in 2008. Twitter, whose iconic <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_story_of_the_fail_whale.php">Fail Whale</a> adorned the service far too often at the beginning of the year, got its act together and was only down for 12 minutes in December. LinkedIn, on the other hand, saw an increased rate of outages in the course of the year.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>Out of the 15 major social networks in Pingdom's study, only five achieved an uptime of 99.9% or better: Facebook&#160; (99.92%),&#160; MySpace&#160; (99.94%),&#160; Classmates.com&#160; (99.95%),&#160; Xanga (99.95%), and Imeem (99.95%).</p>

<h2>Twitter and LinkedIn</h2>

<p>Twitter saw 84% of its downtime in the first half of 2008 and suffered no major outages in the second half of the year. Even though Twitter continues its rapid growth, it has clearly managed to gets its infrastructure under control.</p>

<p>The reliability of LinkedIn, however, is slipping. With every new quarter, LinkedIn's downtime <a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2008/10/10/is-linkedin-having-scaling-issues/">increased</a>. Clearly, LinkedIn's continuous growth is responsible for some of these outages. In terms of total hours of downtime , LinkedIn's 45.8 hours were only trumped by Twitter's 84 hours, though Friendster (43.8 hours) and Reunion.com (41.9 hours) were only marginally better off in 2008.</p>

<h2>Other Stats</h2>

<p>According to Pingdom, Reunion.com suffered the longest continuous outage, with close to 10 hours on March 29. Facebook's longest continuous outage only lasted for less than half an hour.</p>

<p><img alt="twitter_downtime_hours.png" src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/twitter_downtime_hours.png"  /></p>

<p><img alt="linkedIn_downtime.png" src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/linkedIn_downtime.png"  /></p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:254178</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c254178" />
    <title>Comment from Joe Restivo on 2010-10-20</title>
    <author>
        <name>Joe Restivo</name>
        <uri>http://yupitsup.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://yupitsup.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Does anyone actually know how social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter monitor their websites? Do they use services like, <a href="http://yupitsup.com/?" rel="nofollow">http://yupitsup.com/?</a> Which is proven to be extremely reliable, or do they have people actually monitoring it at all times?</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2010-10-20T21:27:09Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:139580</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c139580" />
    <title>Comment from porno izle on 2009-05-25</title>
    <author>
        <name>porno izle</name>
        <uri>http://www.amkurdu.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.amkurdu.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>intellectual property. They had people's trust and then they go and risk losing it İN THE</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-05-25T14:27:58Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:127151</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c127151" />
    <title>Comment from Cindy Sue Causey on 2009-02-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Cindy Sue Causey</name>
        <uri>http://claimid.com/Butterfly</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://claimid.com/Butterfly">
        <![CDATA[<p>How about charts showing comparative traffic, too..? Had coincidentally noticed over the last year that Reunion and LinkedIn, both I'd known for *at least* several years, were being referenced more mainstream.. Traffic (and thus strain on their servers) surely invariably goes up when that happens, yes, no, maybe so..? :)</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-19T00:34:06Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:127055</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c127055" />
    <title>Comment from Agent 001 on 2009-02-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Agent 001</name>
        <uri>http://greatestreviews.net/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://greatestreviews.net/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Social Network should use better web hosting services. I already knew Twitters downtime was not good but Linked in also had bad downtime, that's surprising. </p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-18T17:25:18Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:127014</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c127014" />
    <title>Comment from Ian Hendry on 2009-02-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Ian Hendry</name>
        <uri>http://www.wecando.biz</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.wecando.biz">
        <![CDATA[<p>A long time ago I vaguely remember writing something about a hosted service supplier seeing a significant increase in failure once they started integrating external applications into it -- I wrote it about Salesforce.com or Facebook (or both, I can't rememeber).</p>

<p>Could we see the same thing happening to LinkedIn now it has external apps included?</p>

<p>Ian Hendry<br />
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ<br />
<a href="http://www.wecando.biz" rel="nofollow">http://www.wecando.biz</a><br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-18T08:11:13Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:126997</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c126997" />
    <title>Comment from br0ck0bama on 2009-02-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>br0ck0bama</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I disagree and so does networkworld<br />
<a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38635" rel="nofollow">http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/38635</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-18T02:06:45Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:126977</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c126977" />
    <title>Comment from BillG on 2009-02-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>BillG</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>If you're going to compare LinkedIn's downtime to Twitters, you should at least use the same scale in your graphics. At a glance it implies LinkedIn is the new Twitter in terms of downtime, but that's not the case. The LinkedIn bar chart goes from 0-9 hours, while Twitter goes from 0-25. This is very misleading.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-17T20:59:57Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889-comment:126968</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2009://1.13889" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_downtime_in_2008.php#c126968" />
    <title>Comment from Goodmars on 2009-02-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Goodmars</name>
        <uri>http://gchakrab.wordpress.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://gchakrab.wordpress.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I won't be surprised to see more downtime from LinkedIn in 2009. </p>

<p><a href="http://tr.im/gk8j" rel="nofollow">http://tr.im/gk8j</a></p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2009-02-17T19:07:07Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>
