Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bbs!ddsw1!nvk
From: nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: Cheap or free auto-shutdown setup (was: Reliability Sys V file sys)
Summary: You can't prepare for every contingency
Message-ID: <1990Oct06.220304.17547@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 6 Oct 90 22:03:04 GMT
References: <1990Sep29.220137.6550@intek01.uucp-> <1030@bilver.UUCP> <257@bongo.UUCP> <80@comix.UUCP>
Reply-To: nvk@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Norman Kohn)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 27

In article <80@comix.UUCP> jeffl@comix.UUCP (Jeff Liebermann) writes:
>> [discussion of automatic detection of powerfailure and unattended
>> shutdown]...
>Close.  I think most users have a rather odd illusion that the UPS is
>a generic fix for most AC power related problems.  The implimentations
>for shutdown previously mentioned only work under ideal conditions.
>Last year, Santa Cruz survived an earthquake.  We learned a few new
>lessons about computer reliability.  My conclusion is that the UPS
>is only useful for MINOR power line disturbances.
> [recent earthquake and the associated power surges and fluctuations
> killed systems regardless of UPS backup]

OK, so we can't count on our UPS's to protect us against THE BIG
ONE.  Meanwhile, we need to take care of mundane, everyday
things like downed lines, the janitor tripping on the cord,
or (here in Chicago) Commonwealth Edison's inability to
keep the power up reliably.  It's certainly true, however, that
the power can do bad things besides dropping off line.
The systems that run off the battery full-time instead of
tripping an inverter when the line voltage drops should
give better protection, but take their toll in cost, noise,
and size.  As for sprinkler damage (not to mention theft): 
there's a reason why people recommend storing a set of tapes off-site.
-- 
Norman Kohn   		| ...ddsw1!nvk
Chicago, Il.		| days/ans svc: (312) 650-6840
			| eves: (312) 373-0564