[115630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fire, Power loss at Fisher Plaza in Seattle
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Fri Jul 3 16:40:55 2009
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:39:57 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <200907031515080.2D3A1E03.15233@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:22:14PM -0400, Sean Donelan=
wrote:
> Are you better off with a single "tier 4" data center, multiple
> "tier 1" data centers, or something in between?
It depends entirely on your dependency on connectivity.
One extreme is something like a Central Office. Lots of cables
from end-sites terminate in the building. Having a duplicate of
the head end termination equipment on the opposite coast is darn
near useless. If the building goes down, the users going through
it go down. "Tier 4" is probably a good idea.
The other extreme is a pure content play (YouTube, Google Search).
Users don't care which data center they hit (within reason), and
indeed often don't know. You're better off having data centers
spread out all over, both so you're more likely to only loose one
at a time, but also so that the loss of one is relatively unimportant.
Once you're already in this architecture, Tier 1 is generally
cheaper.
There are two problems though. First, most folks don't fit neatly
in one of these buckets. They have some ties to local infrastructure,
and some items which are not tied. Latency as a performance penality
is very subjective. A backup 1000 miles away is fine for many
things, and very bad for some things.
Second, most folks don't have choices. It would be nice if most
cities had three each Tier 1, 2, 3 and 4 data centers available so
there was choice and competition but that's rare.
Very few companies consider these choices rationally; often because
choices are made by different groups. I am amazed how many times
inside of an ISP the folks deploying the DNS and mail servers are
firewalled from the folks deploying the network, to the point where
you have to get to the President to reach common management. This
leads to them making choices in opposite directions that end up
costing extra money the company, and often resulting in a much lower
uptimes than expected. Having the network group deploy a single point
of failure to the "Tier 4" data center the server guys required is,
well, silly.
However, more important than all of this is testing your infrastructure.
Would you feel comfortable walking into your data center and ripping
the power cable out of some bit of equipment at random _right now_?
If not, you have no faith your equipment will work in an outage.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iQIVAwUBSk5sm7N3O8aJIdTMAQJ4Tw/+Po8ObcQW/mgaWM/D1z5aQZvJ7glZY2ME
PeuSFOGuOQIsUJY/hm/6Ku42PP4sqsb4vaOF3riTaxeo45SviTHOYjFovR/iXq0d
FWA0tsvIrBVFQGI4DV7jvUPeMmGTk6ABiz9NS+ZAeDxboV6tTqcV31vxA6UQ11OH
M3O2kIK8BLZg9wmzmrYiSKDT2K0jHtuq1HHdq+AaVMJMhlTc3HOGbgbE1LnGV6Bk
T1eKImcdJMZCrQgbZEpmZFbV+Mj3F3tA74i8AIs2GXN1/Wz+giTJ3JDWK2W7+gID
0E3B0tOCloYFx2TIVD0+Luip+OO7gIf4FjReWf+dHAw9BVn+snpp/tbrSnBM3BoP
1luynR0Y7xngWR5fa7e67E/5CBauyWvro3ifvWLGGBLHG/tItyZ3JBCH7CNwqZgw
O4p0J2VgaHf5UPEgWdwasauZh97faDB1w8HFaaRChqgH4ZhquYzE64Y159mhOBzI
ND3GAbgZB9ebJSkaTShskV7ZqP+oT7ZfamMg/8sef7+EZc+DfaJ7IDLi9MLIW2nv
tax95kiqPP7F/Q3HJibzwUUDPWe4vqjzFZ0PXimwbN+oA7/LNKLFHpLG0PeIDLhc
YNdQKf8ApH3AwSzrRJiDgVJeZGXhRG+sz3Wl9SyuD5zLbJ28cxPt/ZqFXIvj/DSK
RvEzXwlTxak=
=v9/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--
