Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
In terms of pure risk management this looks incredibly pathetic. First, to not anticipate the problems with water and their equipment is basically amateur hour. That's a pretty basic screw-up there! Next you have to wonder why this is a choke-point in the system? Don't they have any duplication whatsoever? I don't know about how this stuff works (can clearly there are people who are more qualified to comment on that here), but its a basic, basic premise of risk management. Sort of like having executives fly on separate planes, or having an offsite back-up. We're not talking about some amazingly high level concept here.
|
Obviously they do, to a large degree, or many businesses would not have connections. The fact that it takes real time to do disaster recovery is a fact of life, unless you honestly expect them to fully duplicate everything just in case something went wrong.
That's like for your plan, you actually have 2 offices across the street from each other, just in case yours burns down. Of course you wouldn't be doing that, but in reality, you might have a data backup offsite, a personal computer you could use and you might need to see clients in a hotel room. This is a much more reasonable expectation, imho, but it would take time.
That said, I have no idea what total function the area impacted by this fire served so I really can't comment, other than to say I am surprised that there are still businesses without internet today as a result of this, since the one thing I would fully expect to be redundant is the network routing gear.