On Aug 6, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Stephen Bosch wrote: > Eric "ManxPower" Wieling wrote: >> Douglas Garstang wrote: >>> Let's assume for a moment that it's impossible. That does not >>> mean adding additional servers and additional networking >>> equipment does not add value, or is a worthless endeavour. >> >> I agree with that. At least two people that I know run ITSPs. Each >> time they have an outage (which is not very often) they DO learn from >> the experience and work to avoid a future outage cause by the same >> issue. >> >> You would be surprised at how many little things can cause an outage. > > My own experience is that increasing "failover redundancy", which adds > correspondingly increasing complexity, also increases the odds of > an outage. > > It is very rare that failover redundancy works as intended during an > actual failover, no matter how many times you simulate it. > > I would rather have a simple network design where the cause of > failure, > when it happens, is obvious and quickly corrected. For example, I > would > rather have replacement parts on the shelf and be able to slap them in > quickly than be running hot standbys and paying for the > electricity, and > then have the thing break anyway when there's a failure. >
I'll second that, specially for smaller installations, > -Stephen- > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users Andres Paglayan --"Harmony is more important than being right" Bapak _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
