In the early days of DoubleClick, back when SaaS was still known as Application Service Provider (ASP), I was tasked with setting up the QoS (Quality of Service) Team. Our primary mission was to establish a monitoring system, but we quickly found ourselves managing Service Level Agreements (SLAs)—a task that became critical after we paid out over $1 million in penalties for SLA violations to a single customer. The reason? Someone had signed a contract promising 100% uptime, an impossible commitment.
This is the story of how we took control of our SLAs, stopped the financial bleeding, and built a culture of quality around service metrics. Whether you’re managing SLAs today or just curious about how they work, this post will provide valuable insights into the challenges we faced, the solutions we implemented, and the lessons we learned along the way.
An SLA (Service Level Agreement) is a contractual agreement between a vendor and a customer that outlines the expected level of service. Under this legal umbrella, you’ll find Service Level Objectives (SLOs), which define specific metrics like uptime, speed, or transactions per second.
At DoubleClick, we defined SLAs with the following principles in mind:
SLAs benefit both the customer and the vendor. For customers, they provide objective grading criteria and protection from poor service. For vendors, they set clear expectations and incentivize quality improvements
When we first tackled the SLA problem, we were in crisis mode. The first step was to compile a list of all contracts, extract the SLAs and SLOs, and document the associated penalties. We stored this information in a database and began educating stakeholders—business leaders, legal teams, and executives—about the importance of SLAs.
From the beginning, we focused on end-user experience-based SLAs. This meant measuring performance from the user’s perspective, not just from the server’s perspective.
Over the years, I’ve seen many companies face similar issues. Not all SRE and Dev teams fully grasp the SLAs their organization has with customers—they often focus heavily on internal SLOs while overlooking how those metrics tie directly to contractual commitments. For instance, after facing significant penalties, companies like Slack revised their SLA terms to better align internal goals with customer promises.
Establishing an SLA is more than just putting a few sentences in the contract. The reason we paid $1 million is that there was no SLA Management System in place. We started then by building a Service Level Management (SLM) practice that relied on 4 pillars: Administration, Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance (AMRC).
We sat down with business partners, customers, legal, and finance teams to create a process that would prevent costly mistakes in the future. This process, which we called the SLA lifecycle, was reviewed quarterly to ensure it remained effective and aligned with our business goals.
One of the biggest challenges we faced was the mismatch between external SLAs (what we promised customers) and internal SLAs (what we measured internally). For example, customers would ask for ad-serving uptime, while our tech team measured server availability.
To solve this, we aligned our external and internal SLOs and made the internal objectives (the targets) very very high. This was a huge victory because it allowed us to rely on one set of metrics to understand our SLA risk position and drive operational excellence. Our tech group (Ops, Engineering, etc.) also became more sensitive to the notion of a business SLA and started to care a lot about not breaching them.
For availability and performance, we relied on three synthetic products. Internally, we ran Sitescope in 17 data centers and used two external synthetic products. We wanted to have as many data points as possible from as many tools as possible. The stakes were just too high not to invest in multiple tools. This entire SLM project was not cheap to implement and run on an annual basis, but I also knew the cost of not doing it right the hard way.
For monitoring, it became clear we needed to test as often as possible from as many vantage points as possible:
One of our biggest challenges was finding an effective way to measure the ad delivery speed and capture it in our SLAs. Clients would look at their site performance and notice spikes and they would attribute it to our system, meanwhile our performance telemetry would not show any problems. We couldn’t correlate the two charts; therefore we couldn’t come to an agreement whether it was our problem or someone else’s problem.
To address this, we developed a methodology called Differential Performance Measurement (DPM). Our goal was to measure Doubleclick’s performance and availability with precision, and to understand how it affected our customers’ pages. We also wanted to be accountable for what we controlled, so we could avoid blame and finger-pointing.
The methodology added context to the measurements. DPM introduced clarity and comparison, removing absolute performance numbers from the SLAs.
Recipe for Differential Performance Measurement (example with an advert.):
This approach helped eliminate noise caused by:
To visualize the impact of Differential Performance Measurement (DPM), the chart below compares response times for two scenarios
Scenario 1: The ad-serving company experienced performance issues, which negatively impacted the customer’s site. The vendor breached the SLA threshold between Time 4 and Time 8.
Scenario 2: The website itself encountered performance problems, unrelated to the ad-serving company.
After the $1 million penalty, SLA management became a top priority, with visibility extending all the way to the CEO. We reported monthly on compliance and breaches, using tools like DigitalFuel to detect issues in real-time.
By the end of 2001, we were tracking over 100 Operational Level Agreements (OLAs), and a Culture of Quality had emerged at DoubleClick. Everyone—from engineers to executives—was aligned around business service metrics, and no one wanted to breach an SLA.
Implementing a comprehensive SLM process at DoubleClick allowed us to:
One of the biggest advantages was knowing in advance when an SLA was at risk. For example, we could predict that adding four minutes of downtime would breach 12 contracts and result in $X in penalties. This insight helped our Ops team act—pausing releases or preventing any changes that could impact uptime.
Some people dismiss SLAs, and in many cases, that skepticism is justified. Bad SLAs—those with unrealistic guarantees, no real penalties, or vague measurement criteria—undermine trust. I often see SLAs promising 0% packet loss, but when you ask how it’s measured, you quickly realize it’s meaningless. These kinds of SLAs give the entire concept a bad reputation.
However, when done right, SLAs are essential. They align customers and vendors, reduce friction, and eliminate blame games. That said, customers need to demand useful SLAs—not just ones that sound good on paper. The goal isn’t to drive vendors out of business but to hold them accountable. If they fail to deliver, they should feel the impact.
Back in 2001, we knew SLA management was critical, but could we have predicted how integral it would become in today’s cloud-driven world? SLAs have evolved from simple uptime guarantees to complex agreements that cover everything from latency to data residency. XLOs (Experience Level Objectives) are a thing—metrics that focus on the customer’s experience, not just the server’s performance. This shift in focus—from internal metrics to customer outcomes—is the future of performance management.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll explore how businesses can align their internal metrics with what truly matters: the customer’s experience
New to SLAs, SLOs, and SLIs? Read this post to learn the fundamentals, best practices, and how they impact service reliability.
In the early days of DoubleClick, back when SaaS was still known as Application Service Provider (ASP), I was tasked with setting up the QoS (Quality of Service) Team. Our primary mission was to establish a monitoring system, but we quickly found ourselves managing Service Level Agreements (SLAs)—a task that became critical after we paid out over $1 million in penalties for SLA violations to a single customer. The reason? Someone had signed a contract promising 100% uptime, an impossible commitment.
This is the story of how we took control of our SLAs, stopped the financial bleeding, and built a culture of quality around service metrics. Whether you’re managing SLAs today or just curious about how they work, this post will provide valuable insights into the challenges we faced, the solutions we implemented, and the lessons we learned along the way.
An SLA (Service Level Agreement) is a contractual agreement between a vendor and a customer that outlines the expected level of service. Under this legal umbrella, you’ll find Service Level Objectives (SLOs), which define specific metrics like uptime, speed, or transactions per second.
At DoubleClick, we defined SLAs with the following principles in mind:
SLAs benefit both the customer and the vendor. For customers, they provide objective grading criteria and protection from poor service. For vendors, they set clear expectations and incentivize quality improvements
When we first tackled the SLA problem, we were in crisis mode. The first step was to compile a list of all contracts, extract the SLAs and SLOs, and document the associated penalties. We stored this information in a database and began educating stakeholders—business leaders, legal teams, and executives—about the importance of SLAs.
From the beginning, we focused on end-user experience-based SLAs. This meant measuring performance from the user’s perspective, not just from the server’s perspective.
Over the years, I’ve seen many companies face similar issues. Not all SRE and Dev teams fully grasp the SLAs their organization has with customers—they often focus heavily on internal SLOs while overlooking how those metrics tie directly to contractual commitments. For instance, after facing significant penalties, companies like Slack revised their SLA terms to better align internal goals with customer promises.
Establishing an SLA is more than just putting a few sentences in the contract. The reason we paid $1 million is that there was no SLA Management System in place. We started then by building a Service Level Management (SLM) practice that relied on 4 pillars: Administration, Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance (AMRC).
We sat down with business partners, customers, legal, and finance teams to create a process that would prevent costly mistakes in the future. This process, which we called the SLA lifecycle, was reviewed quarterly to ensure it remained effective and aligned with our business goals.
One of the biggest challenges we faced was the mismatch between external SLAs (what we promised customers) and internal SLAs (what we measured internally). For example, customers would ask for ad-serving uptime, while our tech team measured server availability.
To solve this, we aligned our external and internal SLOs and made the internal objectives (the targets) very very high. This was a huge victory because it allowed us to rely on one set of metrics to understand our SLA risk position and drive operational excellence. Our tech group (Ops, Engineering, etc.) also became more sensitive to the notion of a business SLA and started to care a lot about not breaching them.
For availability and performance, we relied on three synthetic products. Internally, we ran Sitescope in 17 data centers and used two external synthetic products. We wanted to have as many data points as possible from as many tools as possible. The stakes were just too high not to invest in multiple tools. This entire SLM project was not cheap to implement and run on an annual basis, but I also knew the cost of not doing it right the hard way.
For monitoring, it became clear we needed to test as often as possible from as many vantage points as possible:
One of our biggest challenges was finding an effective way to measure the ad delivery speed and capture it in our SLAs. Clients would look at their site performance and notice spikes and they would attribute it to our system, meanwhile our performance telemetry would not show any problems. We couldn’t correlate the two charts; therefore we couldn’t come to an agreement whether it was our problem or someone else’s problem.
To address this, we developed a methodology called Differential Performance Measurement (DPM). Our goal was to measure Doubleclick’s performance and availability with precision, and to understand how it affected our customers’ pages. We also wanted to be accountable for what we controlled, so we could avoid blame and finger-pointing.
The methodology added context to the measurements. DPM introduced clarity and comparison, removing absolute performance numbers from the SLAs.
Recipe for Differential Performance Measurement (example with an advert.):
This approach helped eliminate noise caused by:
To visualize the impact of Differential Performance Measurement (DPM), the chart below compares response times for two scenarios
Scenario 1: The ad-serving company experienced performance issues, which negatively impacted the customer’s site. The vendor breached the SLA threshold between Time 4 and Time 8.
Scenario 2: The website itself encountered performance problems, unrelated to the ad-serving company.
After the $1 million penalty, SLA management became a top priority, with visibility extending all the way to the CEO. We reported monthly on compliance and breaches, using tools like DigitalFuel to detect issues in real-time.
By the end of 2001, we were tracking over 100 Operational Level Agreements (OLAs), and a Culture of Quality had emerged at DoubleClick. Everyone—from engineers to executives—was aligned around business service metrics, and no one wanted to breach an SLA.
Implementing a comprehensive SLM process at DoubleClick allowed us to:
One of the biggest advantages was knowing in advance when an SLA was at risk. For example, we could predict that adding four minutes of downtime would breach 12 contracts and result in $X in penalties. This insight helped our Ops team act—pausing releases or preventing any changes that could impact uptime.
Some people dismiss SLAs, and in many cases, that skepticism is justified. Bad SLAs—those with unrealistic guarantees, no real penalties, or vague measurement criteria—undermine trust. I often see SLAs promising 0% packet loss, but when you ask how it’s measured, you quickly realize it’s meaningless. These kinds of SLAs give the entire concept a bad reputation.
However, when done right, SLAs are essential. They align customers and vendors, reduce friction, and eliminate blame games. That said, customers need to demand useful SLAs—not just ones that sound good on paper. The goal isn’t to drive vendors out of business but to hold them accountable. If they fail to deliver, they should feel the impact.
Back in 2001, we knew SLA management was critical, but could we have predicted how integral it would become in today’s cloud-driven world? SLAs have evolved from simple uptime guarantees to complex agreements that cover everything from latency to data residency. XLOs (Experience Level Objectives) are a thing—metrics that focus on the customer’s experience, not just the server’s performance. This shift in focus—from internal metrics to customer outcomes—is the future of performance management.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we’ll explore how businesses can align their internal metrics with what truly matters: the customer’s experience
New to SLAs, SLOs, and SLIs? Read this post to learn the fundamentals, best practices, and how they impact service reliability.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。