Quote:
Originally Posted by raid
You first need to define what you mean by risky. Are you talking about the risk to the IT or the risk to the business by not delivering the required uptime to a customer?
There is a risk to the IT due to power surges, sags, spikes and brown outs, so you will need it consider your surge protection for the site. You also need to be confident as to how your IT will respond to poor power quality. Power is not just about being on or off, it can also be out of tolerance.
A full dual site model does work well so if customer traffic is shared between two sites already, then most of the hard work has already been done.
|
Raid, I was considering both points as part of my comment about it being "risky", as one (risk to IT) leads to the other (risk to business). Perhaps because the need for constant power has been so ingrained that to do otherwise seems like a gamble. I understand that companies considering this are massive and have the network to support such a venture. I can't say I would disagree with the cost savings or the positive environmental impact of a smaller carbon footprint if that is the goal as well, but if there is more downtime for the customer you risk losing them. If I am missing something, I would love to hear it. The article was short and more of a press release, so this discussion is interesting.