I concur. I'm fine with the downtime to keep operating costs down. Considering all the complexity of the program, the regular code changes and the amount of content (which has additions that can be measure by the second) downtime a few times a month is completely worth it. Think of it as a sign of success and vitality
On May 19, 9:06 pm, David desJardins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it's fair to say that most sites with the traffic and level of > activity of BGG have redundant servers and don't go down except in > unusual circumstances. But it's also fair to say that that costs a > lot more, both in hardware and in development effort. I do think that > most of the sites on the web that have comparable scope to BGG are run > by large corporations that have a lot more resources. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BGG Down" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bgg_down?hl=en.
