data center space
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
If its like Montreal. The cost of electricity is getting high enought that Colo Space is better spend per rack than on a cage. I saw Colo literally double the price of big customer (cages) to get ride of them for rack space. Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
-- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
Try VZN/MCI Carteret, down the Turnpike about 8 miles. -- Mike Sawicki
They claim to be full too, at least from a power perspective. They won't run us more power until the city council aproves them running more power to the building. -jim On 4/18/06, Mike Sawicki <fifi@hax.org> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage
in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
Try VZN/MCI Carteret, down the Turnpike about 8 miles.
-- Mike Sawicki
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
My guess (this being NJ) is an aftereffect of the 9/11/2001 disaster. By five years after, most companies who could be affected by such an outage may have relocated a continuing-operations set of machines to one or more colo data centers. I don't know why the data centers would not have expanded to meet the influx, though. -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
At 06:51 AM 4/21/2006, you wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a
10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
My guess (this being NJ) is an aftereffect of the 9/11/2001 disaster. By five years after, most companies who could be affected by such an outage may have relocated a continuing-operations set of machines to one or more colo data centers. I don't know why the data centers would not have expanded to meet the influx, though.
I think most of us have expanded. :) I know Focal/Broadwing has space in Jersey City at 1 Evertrust Plaza. Joe, I know you aren't the original poster, but I'm hoping he or she is still reading this thread too. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:34:41AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Can someone tell me if I am out of luck. I am trying to get a 10x10 cage in New Jersey (Jersey City area) but it seems everybody is at capacity. What happened?
My guess (this being NJ) is an aftereffect of the 9/11/2001 disaster. By five years after, most companies who could be affected by such an outage may have relocated a continuing-operations set of machines to one or more colo data centers. I don't know why the data centers would not have expanded to meet the influx, though.
Five years after 9/11 you would think that people would have located business continuity ops much further away (assuming the businesses are based in NYC) than NJ. I'm sure that regulations require them to be x miles or in another state. But all things should considered... even the capability for major catastrophic incident(s) to affect primary and (nearby) secondary sites. I think the reasons are probably due to companies/governments thinking (hoping?) that in the event of a catastrophic event the business would be able to get ppl from site A to site B. To me it is ridiculous to assume that anyone would be left at site A, or even in the vicinity of site A. And if they are still around site A after a catastrophic event, would they behave normally and could they be counted on (families, fears, trauma, etc)? I'm an employee, but in desperate times my family comes first (that is a no brainer decision that every CIO should think about). Put your major data/ops centers on different continents, or at least on different coasts. Not big enough to do that? Outsource to someone who is. Don't want to spend the money? Partner with a non-competing similar business that is strategically located away from yours. Don't do the minimum to insure your business survival, do the maximum. Disclaimer: I work for someone who provides outsourcing services including the area of business continuity. -Jim P.
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the interface that partners use to manage their advertising settings.
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the interface that partners use to manage their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...? -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please. Daniel Golding
OK - more: Don't have an answer as to why, but the website comes up with: "The Google AdSense website is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later. We apologize for any inconvenience." This is a big deal and it is operational in nature. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@tier1research.com> To: "'william(at)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>; "'John Palmer (NANOG Acct)'" <nanog@adns.net> Cc: "'nanog'" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: RE: Google AdSense Crash
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Daniel Golding
https://www.google.com/adsense/ is up and working on my Silicon Valley end of the network -Henry --- "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog@adns.net> wrote:
OK - more: Don't have an answer as to why, but the website comes up with:
"The Google AdSense website is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later. We apologize for any inconvenience."
This is a big deal and it is operational in nature.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@tier1research.com> To: "'william(at)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>; "'John Palmer (NANOG Acct)'" <nanog@adns.net> Cc: "'nanog'" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: RE: Google AdSense Crash
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu
[mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours
now. This is the interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Daniel Golding
On Apr 22, 2006, at 5:51 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
OK - more: Don't have an answer as to why, but the website comes up with:
"The Google AdSense website is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later. We apologize for any inconvenience."
This is a big deal and it is operational in nature.
It is fully functional at London Heathrow @ 1000 BST (0500 EDT). Maybe this is / was a middleware issue. Regards Marshall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@tier1research.com> To: "'william(at)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>; "'John Palmer (NANOG Acct)'" <nanog@adns.net> Cc: "'nanog'" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: RE: Google AdSense Crash
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Daniel Golding
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Apr 22, 2006, at 5:51 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
OK - more: Don't have an answer as to why, but the website comes up with:
"The Google AdSense website is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later. We apologize for any inconvenience."
This is a big deal and it is operational in nature.
It is fully functional at London Heathrow @ 1000 BST (0500 EDT).
Maybe this is / was a middleware issue.
If one observes enough google outages, one would conclude that they then to be localized, and transient. One might conclude further from that observation, that as an ASP they don't have all their eggs in the same basket. The upshot though is that observers with different vantage points are observing different pieces of infrastructure. I personally would question the utility of reporting on a failure of a service without being able to point at least in direction of the piece that failed.
Regards Marshall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@tier1research.com> To: "'william(at)elan.net'" <william@elan.net>; "'John Palmer (NANOG Acct)'" <nanog@adns.net> Cc: "'nanog'" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: RE: Google AdSense Crash
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Daniel Golding
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...
If one observes enough google outages, one would conclude that they then to be localized, and transient. One might conclude further from that observation, that as an ASP they don't have all their eggs in the same basket. The upshot though is that observers with different vantage points are observing different pieces of infrastructure.
I personally would question the utility of reporting on a failure of a service without being able to point at least in direction of the piece that failed.
If I understand you correctly then it does not make sense reporting errors here as long as I dont have a clue. People with a clue dont know I have a problem. There is no problem as long as I dont report it. That saves a lot of bandwidth urgently needed for ranting :) Have a nice weekend. Cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter@peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Peter Dambier wrote:
If I understand you correctly then it does not make sense reporting errors here as long as I dont have a clue.
Reporting a google outage here will likely have no effect on the ETR. It is entirely likely that other people on the list will not be able to observe the same outage.
People with a clue dont know I have a problem.
There is no problem as long as I dont report it.
It is in your interest and those of other who depend on a given service to track the availablity of that service. Whether or not mail sent to the nanog lists represents a meaningful sample of google adwords customers is left as an exercise for the reader.
That saves a lot of bandwidth urgently needed for ranting :)
Have a nice weekend. Cheers Peter and Karin
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Maintenance windows are common on most network service providers, have been for years....... -Henry --- Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Peter Dambier wrote:
If I understand you correctly then it does not make sense reporting errors here as long as I dont have a clue.
Reporting a google outage here will likely have no effect on the ETR. It is entirely likely that other people on the list will not be able to observe the same outage.
People with a clue dont know I have a problem.
There is no problem as long as I dont report it.
It is in your interest and those of other who depend on a given service to track the availablity of that service. Whether or not mail sent to the nanog lists represents a meaningful sample of google adwords customers is left as an exercise for the reader.
That saves a lot of bandwidth urgently needed for ranting :)
Have a nice weekend. Cheers Peter and Karin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Maintenance windows are common on most network service providers, have been for years.......
In what way does that invalidate the fact that I think it wasn't worth reporting?
-Henry
--- Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Peter Dambier wrote:
If I understand you correctly then it does not make sense reporting errors here as long as I dont have a clue.
Reporting a google outage here will likely have no effect on the ETR. It is entirely likely that other people on the list will not be able to observe the same outage.
People with a clue dont know I have a problem.
There is no problem as long as I dont report it.
It is in your interest and those of other who depend on a given service to track the availablity of that service. Whether or not mail sent to the nanog lists represents a meaningful sample of google adwords customers is left as an exercise for the reader.
That saves a lot of bandwidth urgently needed for ranting :)
Have a nice weekend. Cheers Peter and Karin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
Accepted: There was a clue but I did not see it. No, it was not worth ranting about. Sorry for the bandwidth. Cheers Peter and Karin Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Henry Linneweh wrote:
Maintenance windows are common on most network service providers, have been for years.......
In what way does that invalidate the fact that I think it wasn't worth reporting?
-Henry
--- Joel Jaeggli <joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Peter Dambier wrote:
If I understand you correctly then it does not
make sense reporting
errors here as long as I dont have a clue.
Reporting a google outage here will likely have no effect on the ETR. It is entirely likely that other people on the list will not be able to observe the same outage.
People with a clue dont know I have a problem.
There is no problem as long as I dont report it.
It is in your interest and those of other who depend on a given service to track the availablity of that service. Whether or not mail sent to the nanog lists represents a meaningful sample of google adwords customers is left as an exercise for the reader.
That saves a lot of bandwidth urgently needed for
ranting :)
Have a nice weekend. Cheers Peter and Karin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
-- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
Hey! On Apr 23, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Apr 22, 2006, at 5:51 PM, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Don't any of you ever bother reading responses in the thread? Mr. Hannigan already pointed to a link that explained clearly that this is a non-event, much less an event worth discussing on nanog! http://adsense.blogspot.com/?utm_source=aso&utm_campaign=ww-en_US-et- asfe&medium=et Furrfu!
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:58:21PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Not sure I'd agree with that one. If there was an actual networking issue and you couldn't reach Google, I'd buy that it is at least in the right ballpark of on-topic for nanog (though if past history is any guide, it would just be 20 "me too" posts with no useful information about WHY it was broken or how to go about fixing it). But if you can get the website to load, and Google's servers just don't want to run that particular application, I can't see how it possibly has any bearing to NANOG. Layers people. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
At 11:36 PM -0400 04:22:2006, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:58:21PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of william(at)elan.net> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the
interface that partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
Because this is the Internet's most profitable advertising service and ISP's will get complaints if their customers (esp. business customers) can't reach it, even on the weekend. Outage reports are operational, unlike many threads. More, please.
Not sure I'd agree with that one. If there was an actual networking issue and you couldn't reach Google, I'd buy that it is at least in the right ballpark of on-topic for nanog (though if past history is any guide, it would just be 20 "me too" posts with no useful information about WHY it was broken or how to go about fixing it). But if you can get the website to load, and Google's servers just don't want to run that particular application, I can't see how it possibly has any bearing to NANOG.
Layers people. :)
Eh, sort of: http://adsense.blogspot.com/?utm_source=aso&utm_campaign=ww-en_US-et-asfe&medium=et This is what happens when end-users/customers are intermingled operationally. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
Five years after 9/11 you would think that people would have located business continuity ops much further away (assuming the businesses are based in NYC) than NJ.
The financial industry has to have their NY backups somewhere else in the NY area because they generally require proximity to the NYSE. The latency from the NYSE to their office is more important than anything else. Also, there are many other stock markets outside New York in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, etc. There are also ECNs which are electronic trading networks that are not reliant on a single physical location. There is redundancy at all layers. The NYSE has its own redundancy, all the brokerage firms have their redundancy, the banks have theirs, the clearing companies have theirs, and so on. Even within a single organization they likely have different backup locations for servers, for data backups, for office space, etc. Lots of people have been working on this for quite a few years now and they generally hedge their bets by offsetting the high risk backup location in Jersey City with some lower risk backup sites further away. It's all about risk management, a world in which there are few absolutes. --Michael Dillon
Five years after 9/11 you would think that people would have located business continuity ops much further away (assuming the businesses are [..] Disclaimer: I work for someone who provides outsourcing services including the area of business continuity.
I suggest you talk to some of the folks you work with that have to deal with synchronous replication. In the world of storage networking & synchronous I/O, typically anything higher than 1 msec round-trip latency is too high.
Lincoln Dale wrote:
I suggest you talk to some of the folks you work with that have to deal with synchronous replication.
In the world of storage networking & synchronous I/O, typically anything higher than 1 msec round-trip latency is too high.
True, but 2ms latency in syncing a backup system is much better than 1 month complete loss of service due to *poor* continuity planning. We all know what the next big threats are (nuclear and/or biological), is it worth the risk that the next (and there will be) event is small enough not to affect an area 65 miles across? -Jim P.
Lincoln Dale wrote:
I suggest you talk to some of the folks you work with that have to deal
with
synchronous replication.
In the world of storage networking & synchronous I/O, typically anything higher than 1 msec round-trip latency is too high.
True, but 2ms latency in syncing a backup system is much better than 1 month complete loss of service due to *poor* continuity planning. We all know what the next big threats are (nuclear and/or biological), is it worth the risk that the next (and there will be) event is small enough not to affect an area 65 miles across?
Once again, I suggest you talk to the folks you work with that deal with replication. My experience is that "large NY financials" do both sync replication for <90 miles and then async replication to a third tertiary location that is 200+ miles away. Not sure I agree with your on where you think the next big threats are .. but I don't think we could discuss that with any signal:noise ratio! cheers, lincoln.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:43:47 EDT, Jim Popovitch said:
all know what the next big threats are (nuclear and/or biological), is it worth the risk that the next (and there will be) event is small enough not to affect an area 65 miles across?
If I was a Manhattan based company, and an event took out everything within 65 miles of there, whether my backups are OK is suddenly going to be the *least* of my concerns. (Hint - what percent of your employees commute *less* than 65 miles to work, and what disaster-recovery plans do you have for *them*?)
True, but 2ms latency in syncing a backup system is much better than 1 month complete loss of service due to *poor* continuity planning. We all know what the next big threats are (nuclear and/or biological), is it worth the risk that the next (and there will be) event is small enough not to affect an area 65 miles across?
Is it worth it to lose billions of dollars every year in order to escape unscathed from some hypothetical future event that may not even affect NY? You have to take a balanced approach to continuity planning. Otherwise, you risk going bankrupt long before there is any big catastrophe. Also, I would say that expecting a terror act to knock out a 65 square mile area is being a bit over pessimistic. Pessimal pessimism at its optimal. --Michael Dillon
Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
You have to take a balanced approach to continuity planning. Otherwise, you risk going bankrupt long before there is any big catastrophe.
Also, I would say that expecting a terror act to knock out a 65 square mile area is being a bit over pessimistic. Pessimal pessimism at its optimal.
--Michael Dillon
If any of you have not done so, I would highly recommend reading Bruce Schneier's book 'Beyond Fear'. The particular scenario that is being described here is what he would call a "movie plot scenario", in that while it would make a very good movie, it is not at all likely to happen, and is almost impossible to defend against in any sort of a reasonable fashion. -- Josh Cheney jcheney@mfx.net http://www.joshcheney.com
Also, I would say that expecting a terror act to knock out a 65 square mile area is being a bit over pessimistic. If any of you have not done so, I would highly recommend reading Bruce Schneier's book 'Beyond Fear'. The particular scenario that is being described here is what he would call a "movie plot scenario", in that while it would make a very good movie, it is not at all likely to happen, and is almost impossible to defend against in any sort of a reasonable fashion.
About a hundred years ago in a little town on the West Coast, a natural catastrophe killed 3,000. Six years earlier a different natural catastrophe killed 8,000 in a small Gulf Coast town. By these standards the 2986 killed in the biggest terrorist attack on the USA is not that big. As military planners know, it is very, very hard to cause largescale damage, even when you have billions of dollars of equipment and tens of thousands of well-trained people to do the work. Terrorism is not about large scale damage, it is about striking fear into large numbers of people while causing only a small amount of damage. Advance planning can reduce the damage caused by an event. In San Francisco, they reinforce the buildings, bridges and other structures. In Galveston, they tell people to run away days in advance of a hurricane. To mitigate the damage caused by a terror attack, you need to help people understand with their rational minds, that their personal risk is extremely low, that the damage is limited and contained, and that they can defeat the terrorists by remaining calm and rational. During the Katrina incident, a data centre in New Orleans remained operational and on the air because they had done a lot of advance planning. They had stocked up supplies that would be needed including food and water. They approached the situation calmly and rationally whenever unexpected events occurred like armed looters entering the building. They did a darn good job considering their major mistake. For some reason, they didn't expect the city to be practically wiped out for several months so they didn't have a live backup site running in another city. On the other hand, thinking back to pre-Katrina days, what are the chances that they could have convinced customers to pay for the existence of a live backup site in another city? In some ways, Katrina was a movie plot scenario, yet that company still managed to survive the disaster by combining typical data center continuity planning along with "survivalist" style disaster planning. --Michael Dillon
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:17:51 +0100 From: Michael.Dillon@btr...
You have to take a balanced approach to continuity planning. Otherwise, you risk going bankrupt long before there is any big catastrophe.
"risk analysis"
Also, I would say that expecting a terror act to knock out a 65 square mile area is being a bit over pessimistic. Pessimal pessimism at its optimal.
Who said "terrorism"? Come on, people. Let's not turn NANOG-L into an RNC sounding board. I seem to recall a *really big* power outage a few years back. And does the New England area ever have major snowstorms? Each region has plenty of inherent hazards, both natural and not. Let's not limit our concerns to "the boogeyman is out to get us", particularly when discussing "balance". Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
LD> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:43:51 +1000 LD> From: Lincoln Dale LD> I suggest you talk to some of the folks you work with that have to LD> deal with synchronous replication. LD> LD> In the world of storage networking & synchronous I/O, typically LD> anything higher than 1 msec round-trip latency is too high. This is a big can of worms that's probably OT for NANOG -- not to mention likely outside most readers' realm of experience. It _is_ an interesting field, though. I recommend the Morgan Kauffman book series as a good introduction. One also could argue the necessity and sufficiency of synchronous I/O in and of itself. There's a good deal of work, both published and strictly "in the lab" dealing with transactional commit mechanisms. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On 4/21/06, Jim Popovitch <jimpop@yahoo.com> wrote:
Five years after 9/11 you would think that people would have located business continuity ops much further away (assuming the businesses are based in NYC) than NJ. I'm sure that regulations require them to be x miles or in another state. But all things should considered... even the capability for major catastrophic incident(s) to affect primary and (nearby) secondary sites.
It's very unlikely that your business needs to plan for something that affects more than about a 20-mile radius. Events like earthquake or hurricane, or even a nuclear disaster, are fairly localized. For disasters the optimum separation is about 30 miles*, which lets people who are not involved in whatever happens to the primary (the other shifts) staff the alternate in an emergency. Add in cost of fiber, latency, etc., and 30 miles is just about perfect. If your business continuity planning is telling folks anything else, I think perhaps they're not getting what they think. * unless it's just 30 miles further down the eq fault line or hurricane path :-) Local conditions change the rule of thumb as to exact distance/direction. -- Jeff
participants (23)
-
Alain Hebert -
Daniel Golding -
Edward B. DREGER -
Henry Linneweh -
Jeff Hayward -
jim bartus -
Jim Popovitch -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Palmer (NANOG Acct) -
Joseph S D Yao -
Josh Cheney -
Lincoln Dale -
Marshall Eubanks -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Mike Sawicki -
Peter Dambier -
Philip Lavine -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Robert Boyle -
Rodney Joffe -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
william(at)elan.net