nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd)
From: Jim Hickstein <jxh () jxh com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:16:04 -0700
The gap between the rhetoric of five-nines and actual network performance leads to the conclusion that five-nines may not be a realistic or even necessary goal.
In my experience, the biggest problem is the mismatched expectation: Marketing (getting their data from Engineering) proudly trumpets this performance, but defines it as an AVERAGE over the entire installed base. Each customer, however, assumes it means a guarantee for himself alone. You can't have it both ways.
In fact, my employer has analyzed such data from that part of the installed base that reports back home, and in fact they claim 99.999% overall. (I wasn't privy to the definition and selection of outliers, but I'll bet there are some.) Not a network, just a bunch of boxen, but still.
And remember: half the population[1] has an IQ below 100. :-)[1] Yes, I know the difference between mean and median, but that's not funny.
Current thread:
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd), (continued)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Dan Hollis (Apr 24)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Marshall Eubanks (Apr 24)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 24)
- Re: The Pointlessness of Five 9's Reliability John R. Levine (Apr 24)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) measl (Apr 24)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Mathew Lodge (Apr 24)
- RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Deepak Jain (Apr 25)
- RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Deepak Jain (Apr 25)
- RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Bruce Williams (Apr 24)
- RE: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) blitz (Apr 25)
- Re: The Myth of Five 9's Reliability (fwd) Jim Hickstein (Apr 26)