Re: Issues with Gmail

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 09/02/2009 10:33 AM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush<randy () psg com>  wrote:
> > [....] the internet is a wonderful
> > demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
> >
> > but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
> >
> > o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it
> > makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users
> > affected, and
>
> I choose to not assume to "what/which single point of failure" this
> reference by Randy applies.   However, we can take confidence in the
> fact that Google's Gmail service architecture is distributed; not to be
> interpreted of course, as suggesting that within the distribution, there
> isn't a single point of failure.   Perhaps, from a network operations
> point of view, the point needs elaboration.

I think that Randy might be conflating single point of failure with
"resilience". Google, distributed on every level as it is, is still
just one operator and in this case the lemmings faithfully followed
each other into the sea. We've been on an anti-resilience binge for
quite some time, accelerated to warp speed by the advent of the
Internet itself. There's something to be said about not having all of your
police scanners, etc, etc on the internet from a resilience
standpoint, but the siren call is strong for good reasons too.

Mike