On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:43 -0600, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> 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@commandprompt.com> 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.
I concur with that... Always have a CYA document.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> Ken
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.