Your point is well taken, mine was poorly expressed and not very sound.
Sometimes it seems like 'having one less thing to break' would be a good
thing; in a theoretical sense (e.g. no budget concerns) redundancy would
outweigh the drawbacks of complexity.

Thanks for the correction.
Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Andy Nolen-Parkhouse wrote:
>
> > * You could take advantage of the integrated backup capability and
have
> > one less point-of-failure at the remote site.
>
> This is not necessarily a good thing.  Now you have a single point of
> failure.  If your tape drive stops working you can't back up either
> server.  I believe point of failure means something that kills
everything.
> Using this definition having two different boxes means you *don't*
have a
> point of failure.  Instead you could lose w2k or iSeries, but probably
not
> both.  If a device or service is critical to you, it had better be
> redundant and failures in other components should not affect it.
> James Rich



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.