🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Nov26.204924.24209@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>The real robustness people are concerned about is not how much their
>system goes down (these days things don't go down a whole lot, unlike
>a few years ago), it's "policy" robustness that's the concern.

Systems do go down.  I'm satisfied with
o At most one day of data lost irrecoverably, per year.
o At most one day of system unavailability, per month.
  I retain the right to be upset when it happens.

>If I compute on a main facility then I live with *your* rules on
>things like disk storage or computing resources and even whether or
>not I can use the computer at all.

The systems administration and architecture we have in the office is:
o A workstation per desk.
o Each workstation has good CPU, disk throughput, tape system, networking,
  and whatever else it needs in particular.
o The central administrator sees to it that the network works.
o Individuals generally keep most of their data on their home machine,
  but projects also get assigned to random machines.  This is not
  centralized.
o A central administrator sees to it that backups are done.
o Some workstations provide central services, such as man page servers
  or source code disk space.
o There is a central mail/news hub, centrally administrated.
o Network numbers are centrally administrated.
o People generally have accounts on all machines, or can get them
  at will as required.

This system largely gives good incentives for everyone.
Cooperation is encouraged.  It is clear that providing access to
your machine is a small price to pay (and it is) to getting
access to some service elsewhere that you don't have to support.
It should be pointed out that this system is neither completely
central, nor completely decentral.  It is tailored to the local
situation.  For example, it should be noted that there aren't any
novices on the network.

>...a centralized photocopy service... has faster, fancier, larger
>copiers which are better maintained than anything you're likely to
>find in your office.

Yes.  I still use the local copier for two pages - the turnaround
is better (a couple minutes).  However, the local copier is
getting better, and the high quality double sided, coalating
copier has arrived here.  This office is not big enough to
warrant the traditional copy center.  Besides, it's 200 yards to
the nearest print shop.  Still, I was willing to do 80 pages
locally if I didn't have to do it often.

The technology in both cases is providing more capability more
cheaply.  The administrator for the local copier will probably
end up being the secretary.  (S)he'll be one of those people
who uses it often enough to know how.

>That's why it's important to tear down the last few architectural
>constraints of smaller systems (smaller probably means under $500K in
>relatively smaller numbers of units, under $100K in large numbers and
>under $10K in huge numbers.)

Tear down what?  It's "just" a matter of software that provides
ease of use and is largely auto-administered.  This is expensive
to develop, but should probably be bundled with systems.  Education
is even more expensive.  It will be hard to get people to provide
themselves with backup.  Off site backup?  Unlikely.

Stephen.
suitti@haddock.ima.isc.com