> From: [email protected] [mailto:discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) > > If you pay the extra, you're paying for lower risk. There is no absolute right > and wrong choice - lots of times the low cost vendor is ok, and sometimes > the high cost vendor is *not* ok. You can only make a blind guess as to > whether or not the difference of risk is worth the extra cost. Base it on the > value and importance of your data and system staying up, versus difference > of cost of hardware.
BTW - if there is an absolute right answer, it's this: Don't choose. Instead, get quotes for both options, present both options to management with an explanation of the difference in risk. Describe the level of diligence you've put into assessing the difference in risk (reaching out to folks on LOPSA, researching internet, etc), describe what (if anything) you could do to get more information with more diligence, but ultimately, you're trying to predict the future of your own solution having problems, and it's impossible to get a 100% accurate assessment. You can only guess. Acknowledge that a decision must be made based on vague probabilities and guesses, but there's good reason to believe that the higher cost system probably has lower risk. And that's all you can do. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
