If I were a betting man I'd give you at least even odds on that. :) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts
All of these post on this subject and still NOTHING FROM VALVE!! Any bets on what their gonna do? My moneys on nothing.... > > From: "Edward Luna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/12/19 Tue AM 07:18:14 CST > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > Very well said Frazer, as always. However, I'm obligated to point out, > whatever fault tolerance Valve may or may not have built in... it was > insufficient for this event. Until we are informed to the contrary by Valve, > we must conclude that they were not geographically redundant... furthermore, > to assume they considered a wide-spread power outage in the Northwest "not > very probable" does not bode well for their level of fault tolerance > analysis. We needn't wonder if their plan would work, we know it failed. > The salient question to be answered now is "do they intend to bring their > redundancy inline with the need" and if not... will their customers accept > that position? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > Whether or not a service provider chooses to deploy redundant services is a > decision that is generally made as part of an overall risk-management > analysis. Factors such as probability of component failure, business impact > and cost are weighed in reaching a decision as to how much money a provider > should (and can afford) to invest in redundant service elements. While a > systemic power outage is a possibility, it may not be very probable. In > fact, there is every likelihood that service elements which would be > affected by such a wide outage are not all within Valve's control. We have > no information regarding Valve's service infrastructure, but we might assume > that it includes fault-tolerant elements (e.g. clustered servers, redundant > network paths, etc.) which have been chosen to provide protection from more > probable outages (for example, individual hardware failures, network outage > of a given carrier). > > Given the funding resources to do so, most service providers would eagerly > embrace "geographic redundancy". However, no business has unlimited > financial resources and in the end, Valve has to strike a balance between > cost and risk, in delivering its services. Valve has an obligation to its > investors to make balanced spending decisions and deliver sustainable > profitability as much as it needs to deliver reasonable service levels to > its customers. As well, the cost of complete redundancy would almost > certainly have to be borne in the price of the product. While the end-user > impact was certainly real, it is not, after all, an air traffic control > system. last night, our servers were full again. > > I think Valve did a respectable job in restoring services in a timely > fashion. No doubt they were extremely motivated to do so. It appeared to > me that they followed a prioritized approach, first restoring services > critical to supporting game-play. While this simply may have been a sequence > imposed by the situation, versus any kind of altruistic service policy, the > net effect was the same. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Tuttle > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > Such redundancy is Networking 101 and Programming 101... You can choose to > ignore it if you like... But in the real word it is fact . > > Valve is probably making enough money to make it reasonable for them to > invest in a redundant system for that "money making" aparatus. That is > Economics 101. You think it looks good to investors that the "backbone" of > the system went down for the entire world because of one geological > disaster? You think that's a good selling point for software developers > that want to bring their product to market? 273,468 game players couldn't > play because Valve had all their eggs in that one "geographical" basket. > Wise business decision? You decide... > > Ok maybe they are 500 level courses but you still get the point :D > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 2:57 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [hlds] Post-outage thoughts > > > > All I'm seeing is whining, pettiness, and monday morning > > quarterbacking. > > > > Lets try this. If anyone out there has a diagram of the > > Valve infrastructure, and a complete understanding of who > > they contract with for what services and facilities, then lets see it. > > > > I only am reading people bitching about what Valve should > > have done over the last 10 years, and "I could do it better", > > without any reguard or perspective on what the real world > > impact things may be having in the Seattle area. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
