This is absolutely correct. Think Ed Norton in Fight Club--"If the cost of X, plus Y, plus Z is greater than the cost of a recall? We don't do one."
"What auto company did you say you worked for?" "A major one." On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:59:14 AM UTC-6, leroy43 wrote: > > I once worked for one of the big high tech companies and did solutions > design for various sized enterprises. Even a simple failover system is more > than 2x the cost of a non-failover system. Although most clients said they > wanted highly available clustered systems, it's only the really big > customers who are doing thousands of transactions a minute where the costs > of being down is substantially greater than the cost of the failover system > that bought them. > > > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:51:43 AM UTC-8, CrankyPants wrote: >> >> Other websites you visit probably don't contain this much data and custom >> code. And those that do have a whole lot more money behind them. >> >> I do wonder why they don't run a hot-hot failover cluster and outfit the >> secondary node with slower disk/older equipment. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bgg_down/-/IUZ-ZYBm7WsJ. 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.
