I think the number you cited needs qualification to be accurate. BecauseI agree.. Like I said those numbers were based on memory.. I researched it about a year ago for a customer I was consulting to.. Also I think the numbers were based on a population of PC's in a company and then converted to an average..
if it where accurate as it stands, I'm due for major downtime in my rack
as I have several systems approaching 2 years uptime without a single
hardware failure. These machines also where not new when they where sent
to the colo facility. In fact they all had been running for about a year
before hand.
In any case I agree with you completely that systems are capable of running for a year or more uninterupted..
The fact still remains that CEO's and CFO's and any other board or management member seem to feel far more comfortable when a critical business system can be made as redundant and fault tolerent as is imaginably possible.. When you tell a person there is no OPTION for redundancy of the system they will tent to shy away and so that is why I said it was a potential con in the pro's and con's list..
And as a question of the 5 9's reported on telco hardware, As far as II agree with you here too.. 5 9's is alway a debatable statistic in the life of a system..
know, that is for total system failure. The fact that they could loose
trunks, or even a portion of a neighbor hood doesn't count against their
downtime. If it did, I could point to a couple of telcos in this area
that would have problems meeting those requirements.
Later..
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
