I’ve had teams set agreements with each other that specify the consequences if the error budget is depleted. It seemed like it fit the definition of an SLA in principle, but not a legal agreement as defined by this article. In fact, you referenced one of the consequences we used- no features deployed until x,y,z. In which of these acronyms would you classify that? Ok to use SLA? Or is the legal part strict?
If it's internal, it's a SLO. Google's litmus test in the article is a good guide for identifying between the two.
Also if it requires to call it an SLA to set commitment on a SLO, the two anti-patterns that were mentioned in the article may be at play.
Regardless, calling it an SLA is not end of the world. The confusion starts when the same company has some actual SLA toward external users, or none at all. It pays to use the right word.
This is one of those posts you will want to print out and keep on your desk within arm’s reach. Excellent.
I’ve had teams set agreements with each other that specify the consequences if the error budget is depleted. It seemed like it fit the definition of an SLA in principle, but not a legal agreement as defined by this article. In fact, you referenced one of the consequences we used- no features deployed until x,y,z. In which of these acronyms would you classify that? Ok to use SLA? Or is the legal part strict?
If it's internal, it's a SLO. Google's litmus test in the article is a good guide for identifying between the two.
Also if it requires to call it an SLA to set commitment on a SLO, the two anti-patterns that were mentioned in the article may be at play.
Regardless, calling it an SLA is not end of the world. The confusion starts when the same company has some actual SLA toward external users, or none at all. It pays to use the right word.
SLO is wrong definition for OLA.