[ZWeb] DNS still fishy?

[Justizin]

On 10/12/06, Jens Vagelpohl <jens at dataflake.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 12 Oct 2006, at 10:05, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > But honestly, compare the likelyhood that all three of these would
> > fail at one time, together with the increasing likelyhood than one
> > server of them is misconfigured and starts disturbing the usage for a
> > minor part of the users, then we will quickly realize that the more
> > backups and failsafes we have the larger the likelyhood that something
> > of this will go wrong.
> >
> > 8 servers seems to be to be a complete overkill, and it will only
> > cause problems. I will change my mind on this the time all zone-edit
> > servers stop working at the same time as two of the backups fail.
> >
> > Don't overcomplicate things. It just makes them fail.
>
> Exactly.
>
> We are not building a carrier-grade solution here because, as the
> programmer idiom goes, it is YAGNI (you ain't gonna need it).
>
> Keeping a carrier-grade solution running correctly is always more
> effort than keeping the simple solution up. There's a diminishing
> return between upkeep/effort/maintenance/script-writing and "oops,
> DNS is gone for an hour". I seriously don't see the added value.
>

It's not about "carrier-grade".  That's a total misconception.

Carriers have big systems, we want lots of alternates in case one of
those big systems goes down.

That's my opinion.

-- 
Justizin, Independent Interactivity Architect
ACM SIGGRAPH SysMgr, Reporter
http://www.siggraph.org/