3 ms·
This is quite similar to the somewhat philosophical question of having backups: if your job is to make sure your company has backups of their data, and you entr
by hunter2_ 5y ago
This is quite similar to the somewhat philosophical question of having backups: if your job is to make sure your company has backups of their data, and you entrust a single vendor with that data because they take care of backups so you don't have to, are you really doing your job? Said another way: if you (or your immediate team) are not the party that turns one thing into two things, then there is still a SPOF in your wheelhouse, and the whole point is for that to not be the case.
- kayodelycaon 5y agoMaintaining an entire secondary deployment and CI system just seems unrealistic to me. I'd get so much flack about the extra spend and when the systems get out of sync and causes downtime, that investment ends up with net negative for all involved.
- misnome 5y agoSPOF is something that you have to make trade-offs for and decide what you can cope with.. How much work to maintain a parallel infrastructure _just in case_ GitHub goes down for more than an hour once or twice a month? How many people actually are in the position to pivot their entire company processes around this failure case? It can't be "remove all SPOF or you aren't doing your job". How many offices are resilient to continue working if the building power goes out?
- citizenpaul 5y agoSince most executives dont actualky care if backups work for real just that they are not liable if the backups fail. Yes.