On 6/30/12 9:25 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2012 11:23 AM, "Seth Mattinen" <se...@rollernet.us > <mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote: >> >> >> But haven't they all been cascading failures? > > No. They have not. That's not what that term means. > > 'Cascading failure' has a fairly specific meaning that doesn't imply > resilience in the face of decomposition into smaller parts. Cascading > failures can occur even when a system is decomposed into small parts, > each of which is apparently well run. >
I honestly have no idea how to parse that since it doesn't jive with my practical view of a cascading failure. ~Seth