3 ms·
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 sim
by 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 agoIncreasing 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 agoYou'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