data center space

Tue Apr 25 09:17:51 UTC 2006

> 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