3 ms·
Interesting read. It seems to me some of the long tail risks mitigated by expensive redundancies might be an acceptable risk for the customers. For example, the
by piker 9y ago
Interesting read. It seems to me some of the long tail risks mitigated by expensive redundancies might be an acceptable risk for the customers. For example, the article indicates that they have redundant power suppliers, along with 2 days worth of diesel for on-premise generation. Apparently keeping the second power company available is a recurring cost. What are the chances power is cut to the office for more than 2 days that (1) doesn't also affect the other power company (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, etc.) and (2) couldn't be mitigated by purchasing more diesel? Even if (1) and (2) are true, couldn't this just be a reasonable outage?
- billfruit 9y agoWriter mentions he is writing about a developing country, where power supply could be quite volatile.I wonder which country he is writing about though, perhaps some South American country or South Africa, I am thinking that most Asian developing countries have power companies that are monopolies in the areas they serve.
- pavs 9y agoFew things, There are limits on how long you can keep your generators running without causing mechanical damage - hence two generators. Redundant power company only charges for usage, there is a small recurring fee for connectivity. If Power goes out from one provider, online UPS kicks in - we switch to secondary power-company if there is a long downtime.This happens about 4-5 times a year - longest blackout was 12 hours to the best of my recollection. When you provide internet service for SME, Banks, and some large-scale corps - redundancy and SLA plays a huge role. Home users benefit from this too. I probably should have been more clear.