Reply to post: Re: Nah.

Techie's test lab lands him in hot water with top tech news site

FIA

Re: Nah.

So really unless you are doing something requiring a lot of reliability, why bother with geo-redundancy, it's more ballache than it's worth in many cases.

This. Sometimes being 'good enough' is really 'good enough'

Also, best practices have to be married with some level of competence too. I remember a previous company I worked at had their primary B2B site running on a solaris box in the server room with an apache front end hosted by a 3rd party. No real redundancy (other than the text box that could be repurposed if needed) however it pretty much just 'worked' for most of the time as the servers were setup correctly and well maintained. (Sure, we were at risk of serious outage if a fire or flood occurred, but still).

Years passed and we got acquired by another company, they came and gave us the fancy presentation on their shiny new data center. The site was moved to this wondrous place, hosted across 6 servers with load balancing and all the 'best practice' boxes well and truly ticked.

Unfortunately it ticked boxes, but perhaps wasn't set up quite right, that site had more downtime in the next 3 months than it did over the previous 5 years. (Mainly due to randomly crashing servers, sticky sessions and load balancers configured to blithely ignore if the servers were actually up and responding or not...) Whilst the site was now more 'disaster proof' our customers were much less happy.

Sometimes working is good enough.

(Ironically, we did have full multi site geographically separate DR for our core systems, it's just this new fangled web thing had appeared in the meantime...)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019