BS 7799/ISO 17799
Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 07:21AM
Kosala Atapattu (kosala atapattu gmail com) (2 replies)
Re: Maximum SLA? Feb 29 2008 05:35PM
Stephen John Smoogen (smooge gmail com)
RE: Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 11:06AM
Scott (whip supportmenot com) (1 replies)
Re: Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 11:16AM
Kosala Atapattu (kosala atapattu gmail com) (2 replies)
RE: Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 02:07PM
Krzyston, Randy (RandyK gen-probe com) (1 replies)
Re: Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 04:27PM
Jarrod Frates (jfrates ml gmail com)
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Krzyston, Randy <RandyK (at) gen-probe (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:
> Wouldn't 6 9's be in the range of 31 seconds per YEAR. That is some
> serious availability!

There is equipment that can reach this level. Politics aside, the
gear that the NSA is rumored to have installed in the AT&T buildings
for information taps was warranted by the company to have six nines of
availability. It is possible to engineer this level, but it's
extremely expensive, as you have to account for some really odd items,
and your equipment has to handle normalization of inputs of all type,
including power, because it can't count on other systems to do it for
it.

The few things that I've ever seen that have been even advertised at
this level have had few or no moving parts. They may report off to
some other structure that has moving parts (at some point, terabytes
of data get stored on disk or tape), but the idea is to minimize the
chance of any failure at all. We may be able to get back towards that
with the rise of SSD, but mainstream operating systems (Windows,
Linux, and BSD included) probably aren't ready to be rated for six
nines.
--
Jarrod Frates, GAWN

[ reply ]
RE: Maximum SLA? Feb 28 2008 12:39PM
Worrell, Brian (BWorrell isdh IN gov)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus