nanog mailing list archives
Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:15:49 +0700
On Jun 3, 2009, at 10:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
You rarely need to fail over to the passive system.
And management will never, ever let you do a full-up test, nor will they allow you to spend the money to build a scaled-up system which can handle the full load, because they can't stand the thought of hardware sitting there gathering dust.
Concur 100%.Active/passive is an obsolete 35-year-old mainframe paradigm, and it deserves to die the death. With modern technology, there's just really no excuse not to go active/active, IMHO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
Current thread:
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity, (continued)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Stefan (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Bill Woodcock (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Brandon Galbraith (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Bill Woodcock (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Brandon Galbraith (Jun 03)
- RE: Facility wide DR/Continuity gb10hkzo-nanog (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Jim Wise (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity gb10hkzo-nanog (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity William Herrin (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity gb10hkzo-nanog (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity William Herrin (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Seth Mattinen (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Jim Wise (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)