[115034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mattinen)
Wed Jun 3 11:38:59 2009
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:38:08 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <EB8B1BF1-78F1-4A1B-A477-8B7C30C3D218@arbor.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> 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.
>
There's always one good reason: money. Some things just don't
active/active nicely on a budget. Then you're trying to explain why you
want to spend money on a SAN when they really want to spend the money on
new "green" refrigerators. (That's not a joke, it really happened.)
~Seth
