4 ms·
Sorry I'm a bit confused by your argument. > When things are up people have to work. That's not true. Monitoring software and on-call rotations are well estab
by yupper32 5y ago
Sorry I'm a bit confused by your argument.
> When things are up people have to work.
That's not true. Monitoring software and on-call rotations are well established things, and wouldn't even go away in your world. Believe it or not, people who run websites already sleep at night.
> Do you believe people should be working all of the time?
I'm not sure where you got that. Besides, you're already having people in the office in the middle of the night every Sunday already. Or are you saying that the downtime is when your team gets to sleep?
> If you had to choose between 95% availability or 100% availability other than the before mentioned downtime which would you choose?
Again, not sure what you're getting at. There's only a few reasons why you'd need to schedule a downtime. Database migrations are a good one. All of the reasons should only happen a few times a year, likely. Way better than 52 times a year.
- endisneigh 5y agoI’m not making a particular argument. I’m just wondering if having regular downtime is better or worse in terms of reducing engineering complexity.