|
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why wouldn't you just switch to ?the remote site if the primary went bad? Why is the assumption that if the primary went, the secondary would as well? Or does your network still have a single point of failure at the primary site? Seems a bit extreme to replicate data, back up off the HA box, and then get that backed-up data physically back to the primary site if you had to "run away."
Like I said, I must be missing something reeeeeealy easy on this one. Can someone clue me in? How far away are the sites? Perhaps that'll help me.
I didn't say it was rational, just the requirements that our boss has laid out. The HA site is 90 miles away, the third disaster recovery site is 2000 miles. It is possible that a communications failure or power failure affecting the HA site would also effect the primary site. Steven Morrison Fidelity Express 903-885-1283 ext. 479
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.
midrange.com
