|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Quick question.
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 09:44:13AM -0700, Michel Py wrote: > In other words, I don't really care if the second processor reduces the > MTBF from 200k hours to 60k hours, but I do care if the second processor > reduces the time to restore service from 24 hours to 20 minutes (7.5 > minutes for SNMP to fail the query twice, 1.5 minute for the tech to > find out that either it's frozen or there's a BSOD, 6 minutes to have > someone go there and reset, 5 minutes to reboot). With the right form factor (nice easy-to-open rackmount unit) it will take just as little time to swap in an on-site cold-spare. That way you get the nice MTBF and the short restore time. Also, if you have multiple similar machines, you drastically reduce your spares inventory. > Unsignificant in my experience, and does not balance what Alexei > mentioned yesterday: a duallie will keep the system up when a faulty > process hogs 100% CPU, because the second one is still available. That > also increases availability ratio. These days you can achieve the same using hyper-threading for example, and keep the long MTBF :) -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [email protected]
|