Idiotberry
Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 12 oct. 2011 à 17:55, Charles Mills <w3y...@gmail.com> a écrit : > +1 > On Oct 12, 2011 11:51 AM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:52:02 CDT, -Hammer- said: >>> What kills me is what they have told the public. The lost a "core >>> switch". I don't know if they actually mean network switch or not but >>> I'm pretty sure any of us that work on an enterprise environment know >>> how to factor N+1 just for these types of days. And then the backup >>> solution failed? I'm not buying it either. >> >> Yeah, and that extra comma in the one config file that didn't make a >> difference >> when you tested the failover in the lab *never* makes a difference when it >> hits >> in the production network, right? Or they changed the config of the >> primary and >> it didn't get propogated just right to the backup, or they had mismatched >> firmware >> levels on blades in the blades on the primary and backup switches, so >> traffic that >> didn't tickle a bug on the primary blades caused the blade to crash on the >> backup, >> or... >> >> Anybody on this list who's been around long enough probably has enough "We >> should have had N+2 because the N+1'th device failed too" stories to drain >> *several* pitchers of beer at a good pub... I've even had one case where my >> butt got *saved* from a ohnosecond-class whoops because the N+1'th device >> *was* >> crashed (stomped a config file, it replicated, was able to salvage a copy >> from >> a device that didn't replicate because it was down at the time). >> >>
