This is quite similar to experiences we have had with them. Again the only carrier we have dropped for technical reasons.
Blake Dunlap > -----Original Message----- > From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrh...@netconsonance.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:59 PM > To: David Hubbard > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Savvis quality? > > On May 27, 2009, at 10:35 AM, David Hubbard wrote: > > Just wondering if anyone can tell me their > > opinion on Savvis bandwidth/company preferably > > from a web host perspective. Considering a > > connection. > > > I wouldn't touch them with a 10g pole. They were the first and only > provider we have dropped for inability to provide reasonable service. > > 1. They have problems in the bay area (and I've heard other places but > I can't confirm) coming up with ports to connect to people on. We had > long since outgrown 100mb (was 1g or higher with everyone else) but > they couldn't come up with a 1g port to sell us. Then when one became > free, they demanded a 700mb commit to get it. After I argued that we > never run ports at that level of congestion they backed down to a > 500mb commit but that was as low as they'd go. They had no budget to > deploy more ports in any of the bay area peering facilities. > > 2. Their national NOC staff was gut-stripped down to 3 people. 24 > hours a day I'd find the same person answering issues we reported. > Often outages weren't resolved until they could wake the engineer up. > (this isn't surprising in a small company, it's very surprising in a > network the size of Savvis) > > 3. We had repeated issues that needed escalation to our salesperson > for credit. We never got calls back on any of these, even when we had > escalated through phone, email and paper letters to him. > > 4. One day they changed the implementation of their community strings > to start putting other providers and international customers in their > US-Customer-Only community strings. We escalated this issue through > management, and the final conclusion was that their community strings > advertised to us had to be inconsistent to meet their billing needs. > (ie get peers to send them traffic they shouldn't have gotten) We > were forced to drop using their community strings and instead build a > large complex route-map to determine which traffic should be routed to > them. That's nonsense, and was the final straw. > > In one of the marathon phone calls with the NOC staff about this, a > NOC manager frankly told me that Savvis had been stripped and reamed, > and they were just trying to stay alive long enough to sell the low- > cost carcass to another provider. > > Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. > > -- > Jo Rhett > Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source > and other randomness > > > >
