> On Jun 16, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/Jun/20 22:43, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Covering them all under vendor contract doesn’t necessarily guarantee that
>> the vendor does, either. In general, if you can cover 10% of your hardware
>> failing in the same 3-day period, you’re probably not going to do much better
>> with vendor support.
>
> In my experience, our vendors have been able to abide by their
> obligations when we've had successive failures in a short period of
> time, as long as our subscription is up-to-date.
>
> I am yet to be disappointed.
>
Count your blessings… I once faced a situation where a vendor had shipped a
batch of defective power supplies (10s of thousands of them). It wasn’t just my
network facing successive failures
in this case, but widespread across their entire customer base… By day 2, all
of their depots were depleted and day 3 involved mapping out “how non-redundant
can we make the power in our
routers to cover the outages that we’re seeing without causing more outages
than we solve?”
It was a genuine nightmare.
I’ve had other situations involving early failures of just released line cards
and such as well.
As I said, YMMV, but I’m betting your vendor doesn’t stock a second copy of
every piece of covered equipment in the local depot. They’re playing the
statistical probabilities just
like anyone else stocking their own spares pool. The biggest difference is that
they’re
spreading the risk across a (potentially) much wider sample size which may
better normalize
the numbers.
Owen
