3 ms·
Well as I said the could do it piecemeal (10 servers at a time or what have you) and it would require that the data (harware/versions/etc) for the source machin
by bshep 15y ago
Well as I said the could do it piecemeal (10 servers at a time or what have you) and it would require that the data (harware/versions/etc) for the source machine be archived with the disks. (good cataloguing)
Also $286K / $9k / day ~= 32 days, so in 32 days it costs them more to keep it all running that simply replace the disks.
Not to mention they could now lease those servers to another client and make money off of them.
- jlawer 15y agoYeah, I think you would also consider that with a fairly standard equipment lifecycle program you would have 1/3rd to 1/4 of the equipment up for renewal in the next 12 months. Maybe you bring that renewal forward... and maybe you spec some nicer hardware (new Xeon E-5, etc) and are able to get a better consolidation happening so you don't replace everything. I just wonder if they would be in a better financial position declaring it a loss and claiming the tax break / insurance then actually doing the work? As long as they can support the hit to the cashflow, they are likely to be able to claim the damages back from either one of the parties of the case once its decided and / or insurance.