On 1/16/2012 11:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Yeah, it's funny... I've noticed this strange correlation between
>>> expensive down-time and management willingness to invest in
>>> fault-tolerant equipment. ;-)
>>
>> As we get more people and process more data - the more down time will
>> cost. Eventually we may get to higher uptime requirements - but for now
>> 2 hours of downtime 2x a year is not too bad.
>
> As with everything, it depends on just how expensive down-time actually
> is. If the answer is "not very", you don't need to worry about fixing it
> too much.
>
> Amusing anecdote: One of our servers had a hardware RAID system. The
> idea is that if one of the drives dies, the RAID controller will keep
> the server operational. You know what died? THE RAID CONTROLLER! >_<


I like what Google has set up - files are stored everywhere on cheap 
hardware.  If something fails, then it just gets swapped out.  But the 
cheap hardware fails often and requires more manpower to manage and 
replace it.

Post a reply to this message