Matt Garman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Gordon Messmer <yinyang@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
<snip>
> As I typed that, I realized we technically do have a hardware
> backup---the other server I mentioned. But even the time to restore
> from backup would make a lot of people extremely unhappy.
>
> How do most people handle this kind of scenario, i.e. can't afford to
> have a hardware failure for any significant length of time? Have a
> whole redundant system in place? I would have to "sell" the idea to
> management, and for that, I'd need to precisely quantify our situation
> (i.e. my initial question).
<snip>
About selling it: ask them to consider what happens if one goes down...
and "next day" service means someone shows up the next day (if you
convince the OEM that you need on-site support). That does *not* guarantee
that the server will be back up that next day (there was a Dell box that
we replaced the m/b three, the second one was dead, and they finally just
replaced the box because no one could figure out what was going wrong, but
that was two weeks or so).
*Then*, once it's up, you get to restore everything to production. Try a
tabletop exercise, as we have to do once a year, on what do we do with two
or three scenarios, and guesstimate time for each. That might scare
management into buying more hardware.
As long as they don't freeze your salary or lay someone off to pay for it....
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
