4 ms·
No, this is not a good idea. Failures which are random are harder to diagnose. Something which works or not is much quicker to track down. The simple fact is t
by desc 8y ago
No, this is not a good idea. Failures which are random are harder to diagnose. Something which works or not is much quicker to track down.
The simple fact is that this sort of problem should've been dealt wiht a lot sooner, and a failure to do so is sheer incompetence.
Where that incompetence lies, is up for debate. But given how these things usually run, it lies some levels above the people who didn't have the time to properly follow a poorly-described process in the face of demands to do other stuff instead.
- mhandley 8y agoOf course certificates should be managed properly, so this sort of thing should never happen. My suggestion is not instead of that, but in addition. The question is when your certificate management process has failed, what then? It's defense in depth. In this case the certs expiry seems to have rendered it hard or impossible to remotely resurrect the systems. That's a very brutal failure when your whole network goes down in one go. Having random failures, with alarms going off before everything is down, is definitely better that having alarms going off with the entire network already down.