| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
i'm purely playing devil's advocate. On 12/04/2013 03:07 AM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> As we start to talk more concretely about high availability, I'm starting to
> wonder if we should first ask "is it worth it?"
Yes. I think it is worth it. Especially at the stage where no tests nor
code is written.
Correct, but we have to make sure we don't get so bogged down in trying to make deployment code that we never actually create the features people need.
> ie - what could we expect our availability to be if we just
> deployed a DB and a couple of web-servers. If the answer is >98%,
> then is it worth the man-hours required to get us to 99.9%?
And I'd counter that with: how many man-hours will we spend filling up
to 100% ? As in: every time something fails in the ci engine:
- someone is blocked for X hours,
- said someone ping IS or the Vanguard and wait for Y hours,
- IS/Vanguard spend Z hours diagnosing the issue, devising a fix,
testing it, deploying it.
Sure, in many cases you can reduce Y and Z, but still, X is a loss.
The question is what percent of X is because failures that HA would prevent? I don't think we have this quantified. In my mind its probably less than 50%. From your comments, I'm guessing you feel differently.
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
