On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 01:28:20PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:25 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:35 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > > > > >> > In a nutshell, I am heartly recommending virtualization. > > >> > > >> In a nutshell, you are relying on luck that both heavy iron machines > > >> can't lose power at the same time. Sure, it's a low possibility, but > > >> it's still a real one. > > >> > > > > > > Not luck. Percentage of risk. > > > > They're both ways of saying you're rolling the dice. And in every > > situation we're rolling the dice, it's just a question of how many and > > Well my point was all about risk versus reward. For many, a 3% risk is > more than appropriate. That isn't luck, it is a calculation of risk. > True, but in many cases the analysis of risk/reward is flawed by not including the true cost of a protracted outage. Some of the second order effects can be nasty if not included originally. I would also recommend that the analysis and implementation be signed-off at the highest levels -- that is where the head-hunting will start. Cheers, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
