Could we do better? Of course. One can always 'do better.' Risk versus reward, people. Keeping enough hardware and keeping said hardware updated and operational is an additional (and not insignificant) effort. Said effort could be placed into making sure the site is better/faster/whatever, or it could be spent trying to achieve high-availability fail-over situations, or we can just live with small outages from time to time. Which do you suppose we favor..?
We have two full-time developers. Any further questions...? derk. On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Bruce Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > There's no fundamental reason why a no-write copy of the database > couldn't be kept alongside ready to spring into action as an all- > content (a couple of hours old) but no live community when the site > was down. Keeping the two systems synced is pretty much a solved > problem for database systems. Depending on whether making comments or > reading content was more important to you, this could represent a > significant functionality win over the 'BGG is down' page. > > One can only hope that provisions for this are being made in the > current big changeover. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/BGG_down?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
