I'm not going to read the topic because it's obvious there's a lack of knowledge in here, the OP completely failed to understand the context of the discussion surrounding the post he cherrypicked that quote from and has taken my words completely out of context. At no point did I say my service would offer 100% uptime, even though it is realistic (I've been monitoring a server in the same rack as mine for 6 months and its had 100% uptime). The discussion was about premium providers vs budget providers and how if you're operating a business, 100% uptime is important but expensive to achieve. When you're operating a transactional website, downtime means you're losing money so putting measures in place to have 100% uptime in a facility is what makes premium providers expensive and worth the money you pay. The level of redundancy a hosting facility has is certified by the Uptime Institute (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uptime_Institute) and typically the higher the certification, the higher the cost of that facility/provider. Good providers also have SLAs (service level agreements) on 100% uptime - if your site goes down and it's their fault, they will refund the cost of your service on a pro-rata basis depending on the duration of service interruption, this could be thousands of dollars for big customers, even for the smallest amounts of downtime.
If you're interested to know anything more about this topic, feel free to shoot me a PM or look it up on Google, don't just twist my words and make a dramatic topic about it, that's not needed.
