Comments on: Adding Reliability to Your Infrastructure http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/ SQL Server MCM and MVP, performance tuning, consulting, training, and community building. Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:47:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Jeremiah Peschka http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8128 Jeremiah Peschka Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:07:22 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8128 The same rules apply for power supplies. We had a situation, years ago, where we went down in production because nobody ever noticed that one of our power supplies had lost a fan and had subsequently burnt out. Several weeks later, the fan on the fail over power supply died and that power supply subsequently burnt out. Thankfully we had a geographic active-passive fail over in place with identical hardware. The same rules apply for power supplies. We had a situation, years ago, where we went down in production because nobody ever noticed that one of our power supplies had lost a fan and had subsequently burnt out. Several weeks later, the fan on the fail over power supply died and that power supply subsequently burnt out. Thankfully we had a geographic active-passive fail over in place with identical hardware.

]]> By: Jerry Hung http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8126 Jerry Hung Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:30:24 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8126 Brent I liked your analogies I am still a believer in 4-engine planes is safer than 2-engine ones, but there's a balance there. Plus now most 2-engine planes support ETOPS to last long enough to land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS I find it difficult to convince business owners to pay for something to be use "just in case", just like a lot of air carriers are moving away from 4-engine planes (A340) to 2-engine (A330 or 777). I am getting carried away here... Brent I liked your analogies

I am still a believer in 4-engine planes is safer than 2-engine ones, but there’s a balance there. Plus now most 2-engine planes support ETOPS to last long enough to land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

I find it difficult to convince business owners to pay for something to be use “just in case”, just like a lot of air carriers are moving away from 4-engine planes (A340) to 2-engine (A330 or 777). I am getting carried away here…

]]> By: K. Brian Kelley http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8123 K. Brian Kelley Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:14:02 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8123 I know, not directly related to your point, but some more about the logic of having two engines (being able to fly on just one): The Navy (and therefore the Marine Corps) used to have a policy where all fixed wing aircraft had to have two engines, if at all possible, with the aircraft being able to fly on just one. The idea there was that if one engine should fail, you could still land on the carrier. In the middle of the ocean with but one engine, a failure meant ditching in the water, which meant losing a very expensive piece of government equipment at the taxpayer's expense. That's why the Navy selected the F/A-18 Hornet (then the Northrup YF-17 Cobra) over the F-16 Falcon (and the USAF did the opposite, because it didn't have such a requirement). However, I think those standards have been relaxed. I know, not directly related to your point, but some more about the logic of having two engines (being able to fly on just one):

The Navy (and therefore the Marine Corps) used to have a policy where all fixed wing aircraft had to have two engines, if at all possible, with the aircraft being able to fly on just one. The idea there was that if one engine should fail, you could still land on the carrier. In the middle of the ocean with but one engine, a failure meant ditching in the water, which meant losing a very expensive piece of government equipment at the taxpayer’s expense. That’s why the Navy selected the F/A-18 Hornet (then the Northrup YF-17 Cobra) over the F-16 Falcon (and the USAF did the opposite, because it didn’t have such a requirement). However, I think those standards have been relaxed.

]]> By: Brent Ozar http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8122 Brent Ozar Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:55 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8122 HA! I should have known you'd have something to say about that one! HA! I should have known you’d have something to say about that one!

]]> By: Airborne Geek http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8121 Airborne Geek Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:03:13 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8121 You're missin' out, dude... You really are. Also, if an Airbus 319 can make it to the Hudson, a Cessna can make it to that field over there in one piece, too ;-) You’re missin’ out, dude… You really are.

Also, if an Airbus 319 can make it to the Hudson, a Cessna can make it to that field over there in one piece, too ;-)

]]> By: Michelle Ufford http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/03/adding-reliability-to-your-infrastructure/#comment-8119 Michelle Ufford Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:33:56 +0000 http://www.brentozar.com/?p=3026#comment-8119 The only time I've ever flown in a single-engine plane is when I was planning to jump out of it. I guess, in your analogy, my parachute is like a database snapshot: a little dangerous, but it'll usually get you to safety when the engine dies. The only time I’ve ever flown in a single-engine plane is when I was planning to jump out of it. I guess, in your analogy, my parachute is like a database snapshot: a little dangerous, but it’ll usually get you to safety when the engine dies.

]]>