On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 01:57:58AM +0100, Ruben van der Leij wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 04:36:21PM -0800, Mark Delany wrote:
>
> > One NetApp (regardless of how huge and regardless of how expensive)
> > means one point of failure, does it not?
>
> Yup. You do have a bunch of uplinks, leaving the building through separate
> conduits, multiple power-supplies and backup-generators, and preferably a
> second facility in another city? (In case of a meteor-hit.)
That's getting carried away actually. If you have a remote facility and a means
of automated cutover, perhaps via DNS, then unit redundancy isn't necessary.
Regards.
