Richard Woods wrote:
[...]
I'm trying to be succint.
> At one point, you wrote:
>
> "Second, I have evidence that either:
>
> (1) they don't do appropriate backups, or
> (2) they don't have control of their own machines, or
> (3) they don't understand NAT and IP address spoofing, or
> (4) they did not anticipate that anyone would object, or
> (5) some other thing that I haven't thought of is intervening."
>
> That doesn't actually present any evidence. What that is, is a
> declaration that you possess evidence that supports the logical OR of
> five possibilities. It is not a description of the evidence itself.
True.
> Later, you wrote:
>
> "In fact, I already stated what evidence I have."
>
> I must have missed seeing that statement of evidence. You seem not
> to have personally witnessed the presence or absence of data backups
> or content of any PrimeNet plans. As far as I can tell, you made
> some invalid extrapolations from statements I made.
I can't speak for what you did or did not notice, however,
I did state what the evidence was, I thought, several times.
Perhaps it got buried in all the verbiage.
If they had what would be an acceptable disaster recovery
plan, then there would be no emergency.
There is an emergency.
I conclude that there is not any acceptable disaster recovery
plan.
I think that is enough evidence.
An acceptable recovery plan is not something which simply
safeguards the data, it is one which safeguards the data
and has a plan for use of the saved data. Simply having
redundant copies lying around somewhere is not enough.
> For instance, I wrote that data was not lost because the v4 system
> used RAID. I didn't mention data backups because I have no specific
> knowlege of what PrimeNet does in regard to data backups. Now, it's
> true that the first statement (data not lost) is a supposition of
> mine, rather than actual direct knowledge, but I'm very certain I
If there were a fire at the location where the RAID array is
stored, and the RAID array is the sole redundancy in data storage,
then the data could be lost. So, a RAID array is not adequate. I
think we both understand that.
> read some administrator's statement to that effect soon after the
> crash, so I felt comfortable stating it as unqualified fact. Also,
> it's completely consistent with all I've read since then. My hand is
> available for slapping in case it turns out that my declaration was
> false.
> Note that if a data backup were made at, say, 0200, and the disk
> failure occurred at 0700, the backup would not contain any of the new
> data communicated to the server between 0200 and 0700. Had there been
> only single disks used, data from 0200 to 0700 could have been lost.
> The use of RAID was, it seemed to me, a better guarantee against some
> aspects of data loss than the presence of data backups, so I didn't
> feel any need to mention the latter.
As I mentioned, one pays for what one gets. Not all conceivable
disasters can be recovered from. For example, if a comet hits
Earth, and wipes out Mankind, then we currently have no disaster
recovery plan adequate for that. So, one considers just how
dire a disaster one wishes to recover from, and plans for that.
No recovery plan can ensure that no data ever got lost. What
one can accomplish is to make the probability of data loss
greater than some threshold be less than some amount. One can
even specify different probabilities for different thresholds.
[...]
> "My expectation includes not only that backups exist,
> but that a plan of action including them be in place, that
> such plan of action, when carried out, would result in that the
> current, supported server would suffer momentary interruption,
> not unexpected termination, in a circumstance such as this.
>
> So, I can, in fact, state categorically that PrimeNet admins'
> plan does not meet my expectation in this regard. Since I am
> the sole arbiter of what my expectation is, that should be the
> last word on whether it be met."
>
> There is a logical fallacy in the second paragraph. The following things
> exist --
>
> 1. Your expectation
> 2. the PrimeNet admins' plan
>
> You have, of course, knowlege of the first. But you've never
> presented evidence that you have knowledge of the second. You've
> presented some of your deductions and conclusions about what you
> hypothesize to be #2, but never any statement of actual knowledge.
> Perhaps your deductions are all correct, but you haven't presented
> any evidence of that.
I have knowledge of the results of their plan, and that
is all that matters. Theoretical plans which never get implemented,
or which fail to work as intended, are not adequate plans.
[...]
> Later, you wrote:
>
> "> remarks about PrimeNet administration without having presented any
> > evidence that such remarks are justified, it is entirely appropriate
> > to expect you to promptly present or describe the actual evidence you
> > have to justify those remarks.
>
> Erm, your messages? The public statements to the effect that
> it is impossible to run v4 and v5 servers on the same machine,"
>
> So, at last you do cite evidence, so we can get somewhere.
Not quite "at last", I think. However, I'm glad some progress has been
made.
> Unfortunately, this evidence is only the words of someone who is not,
> and has never claimed to be, either a PrimeNet administrator or an
> expert on servers. I stated what I thought to be true, but I could
> have been mistaken.
Here are the questions to answer, by anyone competent to do so:
(1) Was the transition from v4 to v5 according to plan, and smoothe?
(2) If not, then was the cause of the unplanned transition due to an
unforeseen (in the sense of when, not that) hardware failure?
If the answer to (1) is "No" and the answer to (2) is "Yes", then
the plan was inadequate.
>> From the totality of what I've read that you've posted, it seems
>> that you have based a lot of conclusions (whether stated
>> conditionally or not) on the suppositions that this mailing list
>> constitutes the official GIMPS "forum", that my statements
>> officially represent GIMPS, and that you have correctly interpreted
>> my statements, rather than on any factual evidence you have.
My conclusions about the adequacy of the plan are based
on the answers to (1) and (2) above, and nothing else.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
_______________________________________________
Prime mailing list
[email protected]
http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
