The Site Reliability Workbook

Errata for The Site Reliability Workbook

Submit your own errata for this product.


The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released.

The following errata were submitted by our customers and have not yet been approved or disproved by the author or editor. They solely represent the opinion of the customer.


Color Key: Serious Technical Mistake Minor Technical Mistake Language or formatting error Typo Question Note Update



Version Location Description Submitted By Date Submitted
PDF Page 41
1st paragraph

So if the service offers a 99.9% availability (0.1% Error budget) and we replicate it, now that's in two zones it would offer 99.99% because (0.1 * 0.1 = 0.01; 100 - 0.01 = 99.99). Regards.

Alejandro Colomina  Nov 13, 2018 
Printed Page 77
graph

The graph https://landing.google.com/sre/workbook/chapters/alerting-on-slos/#detection-time is incorrect. It is a lin-log graph, and they have wrongly omitted the first unit on the x scale which presumably is 0.1%. If that is the case, then the detection time for 0.1% is also incorrect, which should be 10, not ~8.5.

Karl Johan Grahn  May 30, 2019 
Printed Page 78
middle

The detection time equation is mentioned first in the section "Increased Alert Windows", which is too late and makes it very confusing on first reading. It is also incorrect since the equation holds for the graph in the previous section "Target Errror Rate greater than SLO Threshold".

Karl Johan Grahn  May 30, 2019 
Printed Page 79, 80
graphs

The graphs on the mentioned pages are incorrect, they have a logarithmic y-scale with zero, which is mathematically impossible. It should presumably be 0.01%, not 0.0%.

Karl Johan Grahn  May 30, 2019 
PDF Page 209
The first action item in Table 10-5. Cleanup/miscellaneous

"bring the admin server backup" should be read as "bring the admin server back up"? i.e. backup vs. back up

Kazushige Hosokawa  Feb 19, 2019 
Printed, Other Digital Version Page 249
List item "ad_id"

The text ad_id Three 64-bit integers, 8 bytes ... could be read to imply that three 64-bit integers fit into 8 bytes. That is clearly false. It is probably better to clarify this by adding the word "each" like so: ad_id Three 64-bit integers, 8 bytes each (Yes, I'm one of the authors of this chapter)

James Youngman  Jun 25, 2019