On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.
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
Zope-web maillist - Zopeemail@example.com