[115029] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Wed Jun 3 11:15:44 2009
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3c3e3fca0906030805h1a7e5c94w205aa7a3f19cac20@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:15:49 +0700
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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
