|
|
|
|
|
by dang
1915 days ago
|
|
That would be the natural next step, but it's a question of whether it's worth the engineering and maintenance effort, especially compared to other things that need doing. For failures that don't take down the datacenter, we already have a hot standby. For datacenter failures, we can migrate to a different host (at least, we believe we can—it's been a while since we verified this). But it would take at least a few hours, and probably the inevitable glitches would make it take the better part of a day. Let's say a day. The question is whether the considerable effort to build and maintain a cross-datacenter standby, in order to prevent outages of a few hours like today's, would be a good investment of resources. |
|