redundant NICs

Hans Fugal hans at
Mon Jul 25 11:37:41 MDT 2005

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 at 11:05 -0600, Lars Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 at 13:22 -0600, Lars Rasmussen wrote:
> > > Are you inferring that NICs are as prone to failure as power supplies?
> On 7/23/05, Hans Fugal <hans at> wrote:
> > Facetiously. I know NICs are (or at least should be) more reliable than
> > power supplies.
> So we agree?

We agree that power supplies fail statistically more frequently than
NICs. You (or someone, I can't remember) think that NICs aren't worth
making redundant because they never fail - that's what I don't agree

> > I don't really care how power supplies compare to NICs, the point is
> > that NICs fail. Even more important, switches fail, switches lose power,
> > cables between switches and servers and other switches fail, and dumb
> > system administrators accidentally unplug cables. I'm quite sure all
> > those problems combined are more frequent than failing power supplies.
> This last statement is a good example of the 'Hasty generalization' &
> 'Appeal to authority' logical fallacies.

I disagree. My original facetious comment was a hasty generalization,
that's what made it funny. Ok, so you're not laughing. I don't see
anywhere above or in the thread where I appealed to any authority but my

I admit to not having done a scientific statistical study, but it
doesn't take a study to recognize that NIC connectivity loss happens.

 .O.  Hans Fugal            | De gustibus non disputandum est.
 ..O | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
 OOO                        | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95  CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the PLUG mailing list