Watch for Hurrricane Sandy on East Coast

CrazyPaul said:
Are you crazy? Earthquakes are the worst. It can easily damage gas pipes underground as well as bridges while hurricanes/tornadoes and blizzards can't.
Click to expand...

Also, there were damaged gas pipes in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, so the hurricane can indeed damage the gas pipe.

Katrina did damaged the bridge too.
domino_effect
 
I work in IT for over 5 years. Several companies will never have server in one location, usually multiple different location and set up mirror system, that is if one in NYC, and other say in Pittsburgh, and NYC server got flooded, the company still have one in Pittsburgh running.

In the past I work for few IT companies, and I can not share the information what I have seen due to the fact it is confidential information. I only can say that companies tend to have back up server at different locations. Regardless of company, it is really stupid to just have single server in single location. With millions of dollars worth of labor into a server and have it cooked in one location is a painful loss for company, having more than multiple locations really an insurance to protect the work that has been done. And lastly, it is uncommon for companies to reveal their several off-site back up servers information due to security reason.


You CAN pick any sites, pay server lease it is very common practice. Its security layer when one have more than one server all over.

Jiro said:
no..... you cannot just pick any data center. Huffingtonpost website won't even work well if they chose data center in middle of nowhere because it does not have the technical resource to keep up with huffingtonpost's demand.

oh btw - here's an info of AD server - http://www.alldeaf.com/announcements/4583-server-specifications.html

and you can easily find out where the server is... I thought you know this stuff... I mean it's 101 basic stuff for anybody in IT job.
Click to expand...
 
I know from experience too. I grew up in Pittsburgh where there is flood going on almost every year in spring time. And I went though several blizzard and ONCE tropical storm. That tropical storm looks much scarier than blizzard because I see damages right away though tropical storm and I rarely see damages though Blizzard.

Jiro said:
no.. not really. not even gonna bother quibble around with you on this.

you really think it's easy to do that in city? I know from experience.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
I work in IT for over 5 years. Several companies will never have server in one location, usually multiple different location and set up mirror system, that is if one in NYC, and other say in Pittsburgh, and NYC server got flooded, the company still have one in Pittsburgh running.

In the past I work for few IT companies, and I can not share the information what I have seen due to the fact it is confidential information. I only can say that companies tend to have back up server at different locations. Regardless of company, it is really stupid to just have single server in single location. With millions of dollars worth of labor into a server and have it cooked in one location is a painful loss for company, having more than multiple locations really an insurance to protect the work that has been done. And lastly, it is uncommon for companies to reveal their several off-site back up servers information due to security reason.


You CAN pick any sites, pay server lease it is very common practice. Its security layer when one have more than one server all over.
Click to expand...
It makes sense to me. Same with banks, they must have back-up(s) somewhere else.
 
Banks, oh my god! Back up is mandatory, and must multiple server all over the world. And Banks generally don't disclose the information of location for these servers. Once again, it has to do with security.

Have you heard of 6 sigma? Banks requires 6 sigma system which means guarantee of up time at 99.999999% of the time, with data protection of at least 99.999999% of the time. Of course, depending on the SLA level the operator owner decide and the higher the SLA level is, the more expensive for the servers. SLA stands for Service Level Agreements. For those with residential Internet service gets the lowest SLA level meaning they are more prone to down time than those business that pays premium to get higher SLA which is less prone to down time.

CrazyPaul said:
It makes sense to me. Same with banks, they must have back-up(s) somewhere else.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jiro said:
yep. veeeeerrrryyyy high. NYC insurance cost for motorcyclists is around $2,000 while it's $200-300 for NJ.
Click to expand...

YES, I KNOW!! Thank god I live in NJ and having a car is a must for me! If I relocate to NYC, then I have to give up my car! :roll:

I know an interpreter using her sister's address in NJ for car insurance while she lives in NYC. :naughty:
 
diehardbiker said:
Have you heard of 6 sigma? Banks requires 6 sigma system which means guarantee of up time at 99.999999% of the time, with data protection of at least 99.999999% of the time. Of course, depending on the SLA level the operator owner decide and the higher the SLA level is, the more expensive for the servers. SLA stands for Service Level Agreements. For those with residential Internet service gets the lowest SLA level meaning they are more prone to down time than those business that pays premium to get higher SLA which is less prone to down time.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the education. :cool2:
 
diehardbiker said:
I work in IT for over 5 years. Several companies will never have server in one location, usually multiple different location and set up mirror system, that is if one in NYC, and other say in Pittsburgh, and NYC server got flooded, the company still have one in Pittsburgh running.

In the past I work for few IT companies, and I can not share the information what I have seen due to the fact it is confidential information. I only can say that companies tend to have back up server at different locations. Regardless of company, it is really stupid to just have single server in single location. With millions of dollars worth of labor into a server and have it cooked in one location is a painful loss for company, having more than multiple locations really an insurance to protect the work that has been done. And lastly, it is uncommon for companies to reveal their several off-site back up servers information due to security reason.


You CAN pick any sites, pay server lease it is very common practice. Its security layer when one have more than one server all over.
Click to expand...

right...... and I can easily tell you that a big company certainly does not have a "backup" data center in Montana.... :roll:

beside - who cares? this stuff is hardly important in this subject.
 
diehardbiker said:
Banks, oh my god! Back up is mandatory, and must multiple server all over the world. And Banks generally don't disclose the information of location for these servers. Once again, it has to do with security.

Have you heard of 6 sigma? Banks requires 6 sigma system which means guarantee of up time at 99.999999% of the time, with data protection of at least 99.999999% of the time. Of course, depending on the SLA level the operator owner decide and the higher the SLA level is, the more expensive for the servers. SLA stands for Service Level Agreements. For those with residential Internet service gets the lowest SLA level meaning they are more prone to down time than those business that pays premium to get higher SLA which is less prone to down time.
Click to expand...

it's not because it's "mandatory".... it's because it's the law!
 
Does not make any difference, if there is no back ups that bank have performed, it increase the legal liablity for them. If the data is lost, then the person who invested in that bank CAN sue whether the law exists or not. It is a NOTE that bank are required to honor.

Mandatory and law, whats difference?

Jiro said:
it's not because it's "mandatory".... it's because it's the
law!
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Does not make any difference, if there is no back ups that bank have performed, it increase the legal liablity for them. If the data is lost, then the person who invested in that bank CAN sue whether the law exists or not. It is a NOTE that bank are required to honor.

Mandatory and law, whats difference?
Click to expand...

"it's mandatory" is more of a corporate policy while "it's the law" is... well a legal matter.

"it's mandatory to have a piss test once a week"
"it's the law for banks to have back-up protocols in place"
 
Jiro said:
"it's mandatory" is more of a corporate policy while "it's the law" is... well a legal matter.

"it's mandatory to have a piss test once a week"
"it's the law for banks to have back-up protocols in place"
Click to expand...
I see the difference so :ty: for the education.
 
diehardbiker said:
Does not make any difference, if there is no back ups that bank have performed, it increase the legal liablity for them. If the data is lost, then the person who invested in that bank CAN sue whether the law exists or not. It is a NOTE that bank are required to honor.

Mandatory and law, whats difference?
Click to expand...

btw - sue that bank? exactly for what? when you sue someone, it's because you have a legal basis to do so.

so if a person sue but has lack of legal basis to support his argument.... then it's typically called as "frivolous lawsuit"... which is typically thrown out. it lacks merit.

a person can sue if there is a breach of contract between him and the bank. however if the law doesn't exist... then suing a bank is just as silly as suing a person who was supposed to "hold" your money for safekeeping but lost your money.

don't like it? then store it in your coffee can in your backyard... plastic-wrapped.
 
Show me the law that requires bank doing back up please!

There isn't even one! So prove me.

And yes anyone can sue bank for not handling account properly, this is very rare. Do not confuse with Banking and Investment, they both are different. For instance, if you save retirement in IRA account and have paper with you and bank lost the information, failed backing it up, you CAN easily sue them. On other hand if you invest in stocks or other risk based account, then your on your own risk and can not sue bank.
 
diehardbiker said:
Show me the law that requires bank doing back up please!

There isn't even one! So prove me.

And yes anyone can sue bank for not handling account properly, this is very rare. Do not confuse with Banking and Investment, they both are different. For instance, if you save retirement in IRA account and have paper with you and bank lost the information, failed backing it up, you CAN easily sue them. On other hand if you invest in stocks or other risk based account, then your on your own risk and can not sue bank.
Click to expand...
I remember watching a movie about bank robbers who told other people not to worry about their money being stolen since the bank's insurance would cover it. So I guess that the banks do have insurances for some purposes such as robbing, fire, etc. In case, your bank loses your records, it's better to keep your bank statements as evidence.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I remember watching a movie about bank robbers who told other people not to worry about their money being stolen since the bank's insurance would cover it. So I guess that the banks do have insurances for some purposes such as robbing, fire, etc. In case, your bank loses your records, it's better to keep your bank statements as evidence.
Click to expand...

I think it is FDIC?
 
Back
Top