[62966] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "Class A Data Center"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Sep 24 16:04:25 2003
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:44:45 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>,
Scott Francis <darkuncle@darkuncle.net>
Cc: Bob German <bobgerman@irides.com>,
"'Jay Hennigan'" <jay@west.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20030924193456.4FA5A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Try looking under Sean Donnelan (sp? Sorry Sean).
I think you are referring to something he did. However, I don't remember
for sure.
Owen
--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:34 PM -0400 "Steven M. Bellovin"
<smb@research.att.com> wrote:
>
> In message <20030924182025.GA87443@darkuncle.net>, Scott Francis writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 03:58:31PM -0400, bobgerman@irides.com said:
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>> This is the assumption I have come to as well. Are there any
>>> established standards for enterprise datacenters at all, aside from the
>>> obvious, N+1 redundant everything, diverse paths, etc.?
>>
>> I don't know if it qualifies as an "established standard", but ISTR that
>> Steve Bellovin had a paper about various levels of reliability in data
>> centers ... [searches] argh. I can't find it yet. Perhaps Mr. Bellovin
>> can refresh my memory ... the paper I'm recalling had specifications for
>> 5 or so different levels of reliability and redundancy in data centers
>> (able to withstand criminal attack, armed attack, conventional
>> explosives, nuclear explosion, acts of God, etc.) and was interesting
>> reading. The focus, as I recall, was on the level of engineering
>> required to reach various levels of uptime (99.9, 99.99, 99.999, etc.).
>
> Not me.
>
> --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
>
>
