Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!elroy!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!zardoz!dhw68k!david From: david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) Newsgroups: news.sysadmin Subject: Re: Stuck with .UUCP forever? Summary: Can you say "Single point of failure?" Message-ID: <23572@dhw68k.cts.com> Date: 8 Jun 89 12:35:55 GMT References: <444@logicon.arpa> <1780@fig.bbn.com> <56966@uunet.UU.NET> Reply-To: david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA) Lines: 22 In article <56966@uunet.UU.NET> rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams) writes: >The hard part is paying for the computer upgrades necessary to >handle a huge increase in the mail volume once the entire 60,000 machine >internet decides to route the mail through one site. With all due respect (and appreciation!) for folks like Rick who run such a site (among a few other things...), as well as folks who design & build some amazingly reliable systems (both hardware and software) -- given the nature of what they're doing -- I would think that the notion of having the successful delivery of all that mail being dependent on one site might be a subject familiar to comp.risks readers.... I tend to be suspicious of a design that involves a single point of failure.... (This is not to say I refuse to use such a design; merely that I'm mildly paranoid about such things.... :-) Cheers, david -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com