Chevron Left
Вернуться к Site Reliability Engineering: Measuring and Managing Reliability

Отзывы учащихся о курсе Site Reliability Engineering: Measuring and Managing Reliability от партнера Google Cloud

4.5
звезд
Оценки: 749

О курсе

Service level indicators (SLIs) and service level objectives (SLOs) are fundamental tools for measuring and managing reliability. In this course, students learn approaches for devising appropriate SLIs and SLOs and managing reliability through the use of an error budget....

Лучшие рецензии

DS

27 сент. 2020 г.

Excellent course on SRE principles. Peer reviews are awkward due to lack of metric information, but they content attempts to re-enforce the principles and provide practical experience to the learner

EY

21 апр. 2020 г.

The course itself was great. It was a bit upsetting to see that many of the assignments submitted by our peers are mostly copy and paste from the lectures or direct copies from the examples...

Фильтр по:

201–225 из 236 отзывов о курсе Site Reliability Engineering: Measuring and Managing Reliability

автор: Anita S

23 дек. 2019 г.

Course content and delivery was excellent! The peer review process could use some improvement..had to chase reviewers via discussion forums, ran into one reviewer who didn't read the response before grading leading. It was a distraction in the learning process.

автор: Jesse S

24 окт. 2019 г.

Some of the content is a little disjointed and the exercises need while well thought out individually don't flow together very well (jump around between scenarios). I also didn't really think the first week was as high quality as 2-4.

автор: Grzegorz W

14 мар. 2022 г.

Very interesting course but the presenters read their material too fast which would have never taken place at the regular class room. That was counter-productive as some content had to be taken more then once to understand it.

автор: Jacques S

31 окт. 2019 г.

A big topic to cover in one course. I would suggest covering a little mare material and extra exercises over a longer period. Thank you for the opportunity to learn though.

автор: Ronald C

10 февр. 2020 г.

While the content itself is good and relevant, the presentation and speakers are too robotic and the module layout of the course doesn't match the weekly schedules.

автор: Laith R

4 сент. 2021 г.

too much repetition , you need to make less modules and more concentrated material , less repetition , some speakers has unmotivational tone ...

автор: Akshay S

28 февр. 2020 г.

The course is designed for people knowing some basic. The beginner level introductory course should be made available before this course

автор: Sergey L

29 окт. 2019 г.

This allows to establish the universal language between teams and set up common goals, but the practical part is not very solid.

автор: Sibaprasad T

9 янв. 2020 г.

The course could have been more interactive. Sometimes it felt like the trainers are just reading from the material in front!!

автор: Jeannene S

4 сент. 2019 г.

Issues with test no working to get the answer addressed not responding to title in the project you need to turn in .

автор: G P

12 нояб. 2021 г.

The unit and exercise correction method is horrible. It took extremely long time. Need a change in that approach.

автор: Srinivasan M

12 мая 2019 г.

Dependency on people is not very good as we end chasing people for review

Overall course structure is good

автор: Nuutti R

15 февр. 2019 г.

Flashback from Lost. Some of the materials and assingments seemed out of sync.

автор: Pavle V

7 апр. 2019 г.

Not well structured peer-graded assignments.

автор: James

23 февр. 2020 г.

I agree with another reviewer on here (ASHISH) in that it would have been beneficial to have some practice examples for the submission tests. Not knowing the "grading rubric" ahead of time as to get an idea of what the course was looking for, sort of left you writing something up, submit, see what the grading-rubric looked like, then edit (which blows away any feedback you received from peers) and start again.

The last user submission (which required a spreadsheet to be downloaded), updated with info you analyzed in previous submissions, and then needs to be "publicly" shared out from your personal Google account to be publicly reviewed by other users. Two things from this take-away:

1) put in more "specific" instructions on how to proceed (I reviewed several other users, and it was clear they did not understand what was required. I commented back to several with line-by-line instructions to help where I could).

2) Instead of requiring me to us my personal GMail account (if you have another way to publicly share the spreadsheet, that can be used as well), have some way to host it on the Coursera site.

автор: Jeremy D

27 янв. 2022 г.

Peer review portion is terrible, videos are concise and well done. Having others who don't know what they are doing grading each other is just a bad idea. People do not leave comments so you are at the mercy of who your graders are and once you see the majority of other peoples work you have to wonder how it is fair to have some grading you. I completed the course days before I could actually say I was finished because I had to redo the SLI peer review portion 4 times and each time I just made it closer to what the rubric asks. Even when I made it exactly what the rubric requested someone still graded my SLI a 4/8 and others gave me a 6/8. That is with saying exactly what is in the rubric. I just wanted to be done with the class since I was no longer learning anything. The information is leading you into being a subjective way of thinking how to implement SLIs and SLOs but once you read the rubric it makes it a solid fail if you did not follow exactly what they wanted.

автор: Doug R

14 окт. 2019 г.

Content was good, but there are a lot of things that could have been done better about the Coursera website.

All content was presented through video. Although the transcript was provided, it was just a big block of text. It was almost impossible to look up a key point. It would have been good for the class to provide TEXT summaries of the key points at the end of each lesson.

The videos were also extremely dense and dry. Again, a text summary would have helped immensely.

The content of weeks 1-3 were good, but I wasn't very impressed with week 4.

On one of the written assignments I accidentally refreshed the page, causing me to lose all of my work. I'm taking off one star for this. If you are going to give us large assignments, then you need to have an auto-save.

I wasn't impressed with the week 3 assignment. I was mostly fighting with the spreadsheet instead of focusing on the concepts of the course.

автор: Dennise C

15 нояб. 2020 г.

The speakers in the videos speak so quickly that often you have to watch them several times. The instructions for the assignments in Week 3 are very vague. This course assumes a level of technical expertise that should be made clear before a person purchases. The submitted assignments should be graded by a proper instructor or someone with subject matter expertise, not people who are taking the course. It was clear to me from the amount of work that I reviewed that many didn't understand the material, so how could they grade my submission?

автор: Dennis H

16 окт. 2019 г.

While the concepts presented in the course are valuable and important, the way they are presented is extremely dry and difficult to follow. I would not be surprised if both the text and videos (besides the intro videos with 2 people) were all AI-generated. Concepts that could be explained easily are presented as they'd be in an academic paper. You're better off reading the transcription over and over rather than watching the videos.

автор: John B

21 окт. 2019 г.

The material in this course was very useful, but in general I found the presentation to be horrible. The transcripts need to be better formatted -- just put a few line breaks in.

And the presenter of weeks two and three is very hard to follow. He speaks way to fast and it's almost just a stream of consciousness. You have to follow along with the transcript, which makes it impossible to watch the slides next to him.

автор: Arjan F

12 июня 2020 г.

The course content is great! the videos are very good! the questions are good also. There is just 1 thing that is really poor about this training: the peer-reviewed questions. there is little (mostly no) feedback from the peers and the grading is very random. I hope you can change this to something more fair.

I'm also hoping for a sequel to this: with examples of the "wheel of misfortune", "post-mortems" etc.

автор: Kaushik B

18 апр. 2022 г.

The Course contents are good, but the Peer Review System is absolute crap. I have reviewed atleast 4-5 assignments where

1) The submission was blank

2) Someone left me msgs on my assignment that can i review them and give them max marks.

3) The SLO Risk Sheet submission was a copy of the Sample Google Sheet upto each decimal

4) The SLO RIsk sheet submitted by one person was the actual Sample Google Sheet link

автор: Hander B

21 июля 2020 г.

Very poor content and continuous loss with different people and topics.

For example, What is SLI, SLO and SLA? Here my question.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/site-reliability-engineering-slos/discussions/weeks/1/threads/IV_7w_oCSXaf-8P6Aul2RQ

автор: Ian S

25 окт. 2019 г.

Should be broken into two. Most people do not need the excuritating detail at the end.

The assignments are painful. You have no idea what it should look like, because none of the videos actually go through an example written result.

автор: jaya

23 дек. 2019 г.

This course is really hard to complete, due to assessment score is dependent on other people. This make learning and be better at SRE is slow.