|
|
|
|
|
by Electro
6671 days ago
|
|
I completely disagree. It's shoddy and inefficient to wait for a problem to arrive. Imagine if the guys at Google just sat around waiting for their server to kick the bucket before they fixed it; they'd be out of business. Problems aren't mutually exclusive, I can fix more than one at once. If my server is bust, it doesn't matter if my ISP is cutting me off in a week, but if all it takes is a call to another ISP to get another connection before the deadline then I'm not going to turn 1 week of having a downed server into two weeks with no useable service. Only solving problems as they arrive is the work of the mediocre, the good fix things before they arrive. By your own example, the YouTube guys -didn't- think of copyrighted videos and they got a $1 billion lawsuit! That isn't a smart thing to allow to happen, if precident gets set against YouTube in one single case, they're broke and gone because they didn't think ahead. |
|
Funny that you said that. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken but I've understood that's exactly what they do at Google. Due to their scaling, self-replicating, and dynamic architecture, they figured out that it's cheaper to just let the boxes fry and replace them rather than trying to maintain and service their gazillion servers. I don't know how many boxes they replace each day but I'd guess it's routine.