I think you've made the better choice. The site down was announced in advance. To be honest, much as I miss it when it's down, it's hard to imagine an emergency which would necessitate a copy of BGG always be available.
I like having the site be fast and fresh and while I'd prefer it not be down, I'll take that over devoting time and effort to maintaining 99.9999% uptime. Derk Solko wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
