On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 12 Oct 2006, at 10:05, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> But honestly, compare the likelyhood that all three of these would
> fail at one time, together with the increasing likelyhood than one
> server of them is misconfigured and starts disturbing the usage for a
> minor part of the users, then we will quickly realize that the more
> backups and failsafes we have the larger the likelyhood that something
> of this will go wrong.
>
> 8 servers seems to be to be a complete overkill, and it will only
> cause problems. I will change my mind on this the time all zone-edit
> servers stop working at the same time as two of the backups fail.
>
> Don't overcomplicate things. It just makes them fail.

Exactly.

We are not building a carrier-grade solution here because, as the
programmer idiom goes, it is YAGNI (you ain't gonna need it).

Keeping a carrier-grade solution running correctly is always more
effort than keeping the simple solution up. There's a diminishing
return between upkeep/effort/maintenance/script-writing and "oops,
DNS is gone for an hour". I seriously don't see the added value.


It's not about "carrier-grade".  That's a total misconception.

Carriers have big systems, we want lots of alternates in case one of
those big systems goes down.

That's my opinion.

--
Justizin, Independent Interactivity Architect
ACM SIGGRAPH SysMgr, Reporter
http://www.siggraph.org/
_______________________________________________
Zope-web maillist  -  Zope-web@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-web

Reply via email to