Want to win a PS4? Go Premium and enter to win our High-Tech Treats giveaway. Enter to Win

x
?
Solved

Legal Considerations for Fault Tolerance

Posted on 2006-11-10
3
Medium Priority
?
986 Views
Last Modified: 2013-12-04
Are there any legal considerations that I must consider when detrmining what is the level of fault tolerance that I will need when developing the fault tolerance redundancy?
0
Comment
Question by:gbsepter
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 2
3 Comments
 
LVL 9

Accepted Solution

by:
maninblac1 earned 375 total points
ID: 17922678
It depends what you mean by legal.  You'll have to be more specific, are you assuring your client legally that their data is protected?  Which no level of fault tolerance provides, raid 5 allows 1 disk to go out, however that doesn't mean you couldn't lose 2 drives at the same time in a lightening strike.  In that case the legal considerations are for you to handle.  If you assure your client legally they are protected and you lose the data you are liable, not the protection itself.  That is if i understand your question correctly.
0
 

Author Comment

by:gbsepter
ID: 17923056
I quess I am looking more for the way to recognize the role that regulators play prescribing …. assessment criteria and, most importantly, explicitly or implicitly deciding on “fault tolerance” or “residual risk tolerance” criteria. The level of granularity regulators impose on public companies, both big and small, as mandatory requirements has a direct impact on the cost of compliance.
0
 
LVL 9

Expert Comment

by:maninblac1
ID: 17923355
I think i see what you're saying, the cost of compliance for most "fault tolerant" solutions is minimal.  At least minimal in terms of material costs.  The risks of employing the solutions almost always are outweighed by their gains.

For example, a fault tolerant solution, let's assume Raid 5 will perform faster than the non fault tolerant solution of doing nothing.
Therefore it is ideal to select this solution because it provides significant gains with minimal impact and risk.

But if you're trying to decide on policy, well you're now stretching into a touchy area.  Ideally it would be nice if all computers in the world were fault tolerant, however the solutions come with lesser known drawbacks that make them useless in certain environments.

Let's use a desktop for example, if i set up a home PC (using intel raid) with a mirror (raid 1) the controller on that chip sets a special flag on the drive, the flag is a protection flag so that if the drive is removed from the computer it becomes significantly harder to access the data from an outside source.  In this respect, the drive is now locked down to the machine, no other machine will read it without lots of effort.  This may not be ideal if you wanted to move that drive around from machine to machine or server to server.

In essence, many drives get locked down to their controllers (or their models), this makes it a real pain if you're trying to move on to new hardware while keeping the drives intact.

Therefore that kind of solution is not ideal.  If you made it a policy to enforce that type of solution, it could** cause more troubles than it solves.  *note could*

More importantly in a policy of this type isn't the actual solution implemented but the disaster recovery proccess.  Regardless of a firm's level of fault tolerance, 1, 2, 10 backups if they don't have a solution to recover from disaster the backup's are worthless.

Point, a raid 5 can lose one drive and the computer can continue running, between the time a drive is lost and a new one is placed in if anything happens, the data is gone. So what would be more important is a statement something like this, upon a fault it will be successfully recovered and resolved in X days or something like that.  And the clearer the steps that need to be taken are, the higher the reliability is and the lower the liability is.

Mandatory requirements can be dangerous if the mandate doesn't adequatly address the whole regulated area.  Does that make sense, or was i completely off?
0

Featured Post

Q2 2017 - Latest Malware & Internet Attacks

WatchGuard’s Threat Lab is a group of dedicated threat researchers committed to helping you stay ahead of the bad guys by providing in-depth analysis of the top security threats to your network.  Check out our latest Quarterly Internet Security Report!

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Recently, a new law in my state forced us to get a top-to-bottom analysis of all of our contract client's networks. While we have documentation, it was spotty at best for some - and in any event it needed to be checked against reality. That was m…
Many of us in IT utilize a combination of roaming profiles and folder redirection to ensure user information carries over from one workstation to another; in my environment, it was to enable virtualization without needing a separate desktop for each…
In this video, Percona Director of Solution Engineering Jon Tobin discusses the function and features of Percona Server for MongoDB. How Percona can help Percona can help you determine if Percona Server for MongoDB is the right solution for …
In this video, Percona Solution Engineer Rick Golba discuss how (and why) you implement high availability in a database environment. To discuss how Percona Consulting can help with your design and architecture needs for your database and infrastr…
Suggested Courses

636 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question