[116910] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Data Center testing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Aitken)
Wed Aug 26 15:13:33 2009
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:13:14 +0000
From: Jeff Aitken <jaitken@aitken.com>
To: "Frank Bulk - iName.com" <frnkblk@iname.com>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAC8/2HhXKM1TZSQC0DXTu5nAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:45:07PM -0500, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
> There's more to data integrity in a data center (well, anything powered,
> that is) than network configurations.
Understood and agreed. My point was that induced failure testing isn't
the right way to catch incorrect or unauthorized config changes, which is
what I understood the original poster to have said was his problem. My
apologies if I misunderstood what he was asking.
> So while your analogy emphasizes the importance of having good processes in
> place to catch the problems up front, it doesn't eliminate throwing the
> switch.
Yup, and it's precisely why I suggested using planned maintenance events
as one way of doing at least limited failure testing.
--Jeff
