4 ms·

If you host everything on your own server, you have one point of failure. If you host some stuff on server 1 and some stuff on server 2, and you need both to f

• mikeryan 14y ago
  If you host some stuff on server 1 and some stuff on server 2, and you need both to function, then you have two points of failures. reply This is kind of a simple argument, increasing the number of "points of failure" doesn't, or shouldn't increase your odds of "failing" more. Adding cache layers and CDNs may add "servers" to your architecture but should also be done in way to reduce overall downtime.
  • josephcooney 14y ago
    Increasing the number of points of failure absolutely does increase the chances of failure, even if each 'point' is more reliable. 1 server with a 98% uptime is more reliable than 5 servers with a 99% uptime, if all 5 have to be working for everything to 'work'.
  • saraid216 14y ago
    You're understanding his point incorrectly. The keyword isn't "points of failure". It's "attack surface". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_surface http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_surface
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• baddox 14y ago
  That's why fallback techniques like the ones in this article are a great idea (assuming that they are reliable).