On 2010-01-22, at 07:45, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
It is simply not true that everything needs to be done for real in
order to be sure it can be done.
I think that's true. However, for procedures (manual or automated) that are
required to function seamlessly and transparently in production,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 03:23:02PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
the apparent nub of the argument is... we need to be
able to do this rollover thing, but if we screw up
it will be hard to put back together... so we won't
actually do the task - and hope
Andrew,
Which sort of test you ought to do is governed by what kind of needs you have.
I've been in places where folks really needed to rely on generators kicking in
during a power outage. When the generators turned out to be reasonably good at
being pieces of industrial art because folks
On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:11, Roy Arends wrote:
I'd recommend that 'exercise the activity' is not done on critical
production systems.
I'd recommend the opposite. Sort of: carry out these drills in the
production environment but clearly not on the systems that are
actually handling the
On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 21 Jan 2010, at 22:11, Roy Arends wrote:
I'd recommend that 'exercise the activity' is not done on critical
production systems.
I'd recommend the opposite. Sort of: carry out these drills in the production
environment but clearly not on
On 21 Jan 2010, at 23:55, Roy Arends wrote:
I'm arguing that the exercising should not be done on critical
production systems.
Argue all you like. :-) But if those procedures, policies and
processes are not exercised on the critical production systems *for
real* there is no way of
On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
On 21 Jan 2010, at 23:55, Roy Arends wrote:
I'm arguing that the exercising should not be done on critical production
systems.
Argue all you like. :-) But if those procedures, policies and processes are
not exercised on the critical
