*>>True, but not a useful statement. * The usefulness of the response was contingent on the usefulness of the statement that triggered it.
Feel free to provide a useful scenario that is easily mitigated with physical access, but not in the cloud or in a hosted data center. *>>I can't even get a colo host a spare DC and a backup file server* So, there are lots of scenarios that you cannot mitigate either. That's the choice your organization has made. *>>Give what you've just said about the Cisco Unity infrastructure, I'd recommend getting rid of it.* Thanks for that suggestion. I hadn't thought of that at all, and I'm sure that there are no costs to switching vendors. Or, I could simply say: "*True, but not a useful statement.*" *ASB *(Professional Bio <http://about.me/Andrew.S.Baker/bio>) *Harnessing the Advantages of Technology for the SMB market... * On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:13, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>The SMB market is where I live, and by going to the cloud I would > subject > >>> my company to a risk for which I don't see a good, or indeed any, > >>> mitigation. > > > > There is no single mitigation for any problem. Disaster Recovery > planning > > will differ based on the nature of the disaster being mitigated against. > > True, but not a useful statement. > > > Also, the problems you speak of apply to almost *any* hosted scenario, > cloud > > or otherwise. Basically, you're under the impression that having your > hands > > on the hardware guarantees you some sort of ETA. > > Yes, and in my world, it's true. ATM, I can't think of a failure that > I can't remedy - aside from the major disaster recovery scenarios of > things like earthquake or fire. Unfortunately, the company refuses to > consider those mitigations - I can't even get a colo host a spare DC > and a backup file server. It's not what I recommend, but it's out of > my hands. OTOH, I generate two sets of tapes for restore, one for > local use, one for off-site storage. > > > Just this week, we had a situation with our Cisco Unity server -- which > is > > in our collocation space -- where it experienced a drive failure that > > rendered it unusable, even though its a mirrored drive. The 4-hour > > replacement took 8 hours due to several fiascos with IBM support, and > turned > > out to be the wrong part. Another 4 hours got us the right part. Then, > the > > rebuild and reimport of data failed on numerous levels and required > speaking > > with no less than 8 or 9 technicians. 72 hours later, we're back up an > > running. > > > > This was with ONE server, and my team had physical access to the box, > > although that had little bearing on successfully getting it back up. We > > could not change the hardware in the box, because the install is keyed to > > specific part numbers, and the system refused to install to only one > drive > > as an emergency. > > > > Imagine a larger ecosystem of complexity... The problem is not physical > > proximity. > > Complexity is the enemy of serenity. Give what you've just said about > the Cisco Unity infrastructure, I'd recommend getting rid of it. I > like my Shoretel - any failure in that I can remedy with parts that I > have in house, or a restore, which I've done in test. > > Kurt > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
