Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The thing is usually this argument goes something like this:

A: Should prod be running a failover / <insert other safety mechanism>?

B: Yes!

A: This is how much it costs: <number>

B: Errm... Let me check... OK I got an answer, let's document how we'd do it, but we can't afford the overhead of an auto-failover setup.

And so then there will be 2 types of companies, the ones that "do it properly" will have more costs, their margins will be lower, over time they'll be less successful as long as no big incident happens. When a big incident happens though, for most businesses - recent history proves that if everyone was down, nobody really complains. If your customers have 1 vendor down due to this issue, they will complain, but if your customers have 10 vendors down, and are themselves down, they don't complain anymore. And so you get this tragedy of the commons type dynamic where it pays off to do what most people do rather than the right thing.

And the thing is, in practice, doing the thing most people do is probably not a bad yardstick - however disappointing that is. 20 years ago nobody had 2FA and it was acceptable, today most sites do and it's not acceptable anymore not to have it.



That's a lot of words to say: "Yes, I will jump off a cliff if all my friends do it!"

Besides, no one is seriously considering auto failover for desktop machines. Not sure where that came from?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: