[Asterisk-Users] Reasons why I shouldn't use Asterisk?

[WipeOut]

Steven Critchfield wrote:

>I think the number you cited needs qualification to be accurate. Because
>if it where accurate as it stands, I'm due for major downtime in my rack
>as I have several systems approaching 2 years uptime without a single
>hardware failure. These machines also where not new when they where sent
>to the colo facility. In fact they all had been running for about a year
>before hand.
>  
>
I agree.. Like I said those numbers were based on memory.. I researched 
it about a year ago for a customer I was consulting to.. Also I think 
the numbers were based on a population of PC's in a company and then 
converted to an average..

In any case I agree with you completely that systems are capable of 
running for a year or more uninterupted..

The fact still remains that CEO's and CFO's and any other board or 
management member seem to feel far more comfortable when a critical 
business system can be made as redundant and fault tolerent as is 
imaginably possible.. When you tell a person there is no OPTION for 
redundancy of the system they will tent to shy away and so that is why I 
said it was a potential con in the pro's and con's list..

>And as a question of the 5 9's reported on telco hardware, As far as I
>know, that is for total system failure. The fact that they could loose
>trunks, or even a portion of a neighbor hood doesn't count against their
>downtime. If it did, I could point to a couple of telcos in this area
>that would have problems meeting those requirements.
>  
>
I agree with you here too.. 5 9's is alway a debatable statistic in the 
life of a system..

Later..