[AusNOG] Telstra Network Down

[Robert Hudson]

In most cases, cloud is just someone else's computer...

On 2 Feb 2017 7:14 PM, "Chad Kelly" <chad at cpkws.com.au> wrote:

> On 2/2/2017 6:50 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2 Feb. 2017 4:30 pm, "Chad Kelly" <chad at cpkws.com.au> wrote:
>
> On 2/2/2017 3:19 PM, ausnog-request at lists.ausnog.net wrote:
>
>> Of course when people say we have 2 core data centers, this should imply
>> no
>> data center is allowed to run over 50% capacity. It's odd/strange that 3
>> active core data centers should sound so unorthodox, yet this is the only
>> way to assure you can run your DCs at 65% and handle a DC going black.
>> Begs
>> the question why 4 active core DCs isn't standard architecture for core
>> national infrastructure (which would assure high availability under 75%
>> load), and 2x efficient in idle infrastructure.
>>
>
> I like your idea in theory.
>
>
> It's not theory. At one of the ISP's I've worked for we scaled out BRASes
> this way. As you add units of capacity, the required redundancy capacity
> required to cover a single unit failure reduces across all the other units.
> It works when you can divide your problem up into smaller sub-problems and
> distribute them across a pool.
>
> The argument sometimes used against it is that it is more devices to
> manage. True, however that is tractable by using config templates,
> automation and device management platforms ("software defined networks").
> The problems of managing many devices is not a new one if you've spent any
> time managing fleets of desktop PCs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But building data centres costs money and a significant amount of it.
>
>
>
>
> You get what you pay for. If you need high availability, you need to be
> prepared to pay the price if it. If you can't afford the price, then it is
> likely your availability requirements are greater than they really need to
> be. Put a dollar cost against the consequence of a failure, and you might
> find you really do need to pay the price of the HA you want.
>
> If you can't afford to build DCs, you rent space in other people's to meet
> your availability goals.
>
>
>
> I remember when the Warrnambool exchange fire occurred, a discussion was
> had around fire suppression and the lack of it in a critical exchange for
> regional Victoria.
>
> Begs the question did they have appropriate levels of fire suppression
> equipment installed?
>
> No good having multiple lots of equipment if its not being protected from
> fire properly.
>
>
>
> A better architecture is one where a facility fire has a far smaller
> impact.
>
> Your unit of expansion is your potential unit of failure. Larger units of
> expansion, larger consequences of failure.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I get where you are coming from.
>
> A group of us were discussing the true meaning of cloud in terms of web
> hosting the other day, I basically said that if the server isn't setup with
> load balancing across multiple DC's that it isn't really proper cloud
> hosting. It needs to be setup with high availability.
>
> A lot of providers use the term cloud when its not.
>
>
> --
> Chad Kelly
> Manager
> CPK Web Services
> web www.cpkws.com.au
> phone 03 9013 4853
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170202/82edbd17/attachment.html>