"They all suck!" Re: UPS failure modes (was: fire at NAC)

E.B. Dreger eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Thu May 29 23:37:58 UTC 2003

SD> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:53:43 -0400 (EDT)
SD> From: Sean Donelan

SD> Yep, tieing together "redundant" systems with parelleling
SD> gears turns two independent systems into one "co-dependent"
SD> system.  In a failure situation, you want to compartmentalize
SD> the failure.  Loosing half your systems may be better than
SD> loosing all your systems.

Too bad a substantial amount of equipment doesn't allow for
redundant plugins.  The ability to plug { servers | routers |
whatever } into two totally separate power feeds is nice.

Anyone for building a rackmount transfer switch for two inputs?
Assuming it didn't fail (!) -- would the economies of scale work
for or against it compared to big transfer switches?  Between
dealing with _much_ smaller current levels and the opportunity
for mass production, what are the chances of something like this

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

More information about the NANOG mailing list