|
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 mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.