I understand the sentiment, but there is literally no way to "take out the servers". Tech platforms are distributed nowadays, and servers are designed to be "throw away". The bigger companies can lose multiple datacenters and will keep chugging along like nothing happened; it's not a feasible plan.
Actually, yes. Generally they have onsite backup generators, UPSs, and enough fuel to run for days while the power company fixes things. But again, you have no idea how resilient most big sites are designed. Google has hundreds, if not thousands, of datacenters world wide. You could take out a few DCs and the site would continue to work. Same goes for all other major sites as well.
Generators need fuel brought TO them and maintenance.
I guess it depends what your level of 'serious' is.
( Not trying to talk shit) I did contingency planning for years and was pretty good at it.
Can we agree that the 'idea' to concentrate on the locations mentioned 'just might' be important?
I understand the sentiment, but there is literally no way to "take out the servers". Tech platforms are distributed nowadays, and servers are designed to be "throw away". The bigger companies can lose multiple datacenters and will keep chugging along like nothing happened; it's not a feasible plan.
They generate their own electricity? I didn't know that.
Actually, yes. Generally they have onsite backup generators, UPSs, and enough fuel to run for days while the power company fixes things. But again, you have no idea how resilient most big sites are designed. Google has hundreds, if not thousands, of datacenters world wide. You could take out a few DCs and the site would continue to work. Same goes for all other major sites as well.
Generators need fuel brought TO them and maintenance. I guess it depends what your level of 'serious' is. ( Not trying to talk shit) I did contingency planning for years and was pretty good at it. Can we agree that the 'idea' to concentrate on the locations mentioned 'just might' be important?