<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Infrastructure&#8217;s Purpose</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.dssdatacenter.com/2009/03/26/infrastructures-purpose/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.dssdatacenter.com/2009/03/26/infrastructures-purpose/</link>
	<description>Data Centers, Disaster Planning, and Human Factors</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:22:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patches &#124; Keep It Running</title>
		<link>http://blog.dssdatacenter.com/2009/03/26/infrastructures-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Patches &#124; Keep It Running</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dcweb2.dssdatacenter.com/?p=3#comment-35</guid>
		<description>[...] Remember the purpose of infrastructure is to keep running - the very namesake of this blog.  Our infrastructure does us no good when it&#8217;s down. Every patch brings with it the some level of risk to uptime. So, the obvious thing to do would be to test every patch before we apply it to a product system. Do you? Really? Every time? Or is easier to just apply the latest raft of fixes from say, Microsoft, and just hope for the best? For those of us who have to endure the regular water-boarding process of a SAS 70 Type II audit, hope is not a strategy. Not only do we have to test every patch before applying it to a live system, but we also have to prove that we did so, and that we have a defined process that meets the muster of the auditors. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Remember the purpose of infrastructure is to keep running &#8211; the very namesake of this blog.  Our infrastructure does us no good when it&#8217;s down. Every patch brings with it the some level of risk to uptime. So, the obvious thing to do would be to test every patch before we apply it to a product system. Do you? Really? Every time? Or is easier to just apply the latest raft of fixes from say, Microsoft, and just hope for the best? For those of us who have to endure the regular water-boarding process of a SAS 70 Type II audit, hope is not a strategy. Not only do we have to test every patch before applying it to a live system, but we also have to prove that we did so, and that we have a defined process that meets the muster of the auditors. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Who&#8217;s Afraid Of The Big Bad Wolf? &#124; Keep It Running</title>
		<link>http://blog.dssdatacenter.com/2009/03/26/infrastructures-purpose/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Who&#8217;s Afraid Of The Big Bad Wolf? &#124; Keep It Running</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dcweb2.dssdatacenter.com/?p=3#comment-3</guid>
		<description>[...] reason for us to consider (or fear) UCS?  For most of us, UCS is not going to help with the primary purpose of our infrastructure. Here’s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] reason for us to consider (or fear) UCS?  For most of us, UCS is not going to help with the primary purpose of our infrastructure. Here’s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
