nanog mailing list archives
Re: data center space
From: Michael.Dillon () btradianz com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:17:51 +0100
True, but 2ms latency in syncing a backup system is much better than 1 month complete loss of service due to *poor* continuity planning. We all know what the next big threats are (nuclear and/or biological), is it worth the risk that the next (and there will be) event is small enough not to affect an area 65 miles across?
Is it worth it to lose billions of dollars every year in order to escape unscathed from some hypothetical future event that may not even affect NY? You have to take a balanced approach to continuity planning. Otherwise, you risk going bankrupt long before there is any big catastrophe. Also, I would say that expecting a terror act to knock out a 65 square mile area is being a bit over pessimistic. Pessimal pessimism at its optimal. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: Google AdSense Crash, (continued)
- Re: Google AdSense Crash Joel Jaeggli (Apr 24)
- Re: Google AdSense Crash Peter Dambier (Apr 24)
- Re: Google AdSense Crash Rodney Joffe (Apr 23)
- Re: Google AdSense Crash Richard A Steenbergen (Apr 22)
- Re: Google AdSense Crash Martin Hannigan (Apr 22)
- Re: data center space Michael . Dillon (Apr 24)
- RE: data center space Lincoln Dale (Apr 24)
- Re: data center space Jim Popovitch (Apr 24)
- RE: data center space Lincoln Dale (Apr 24)
- Re: data center space Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 24)
- Re: data center space Michael . Dillon (Apr 25)
- Re: data center space Josh Cheney (Apr 25)
- Re: data center space Michael . Dillon (Apr 25)
- Re: data center space Edward B. DREGER (Apr 25)
- RE: data center space Edward B. DREGER (Apr 25)
- Re: data center space Jeff Hayward (Apr 25)