Won questions PSAC redundancy and backup system topology
Won questions why there isn't a backup PSAC 2 system that can be switched on when the primary fails, and whether rerouting all traffic to PSAC 1 would overload it. Gelobter explains each PSAC can independently handle the full city load. Won argues for a disaster recovery backup with original configurations ready to switch on.
Okay, but I want to go to your statement.
It says here, Motorola began remediating the issue by directing all core traffic to PSAC 1 for routing.
Yes.
It says right here.
So now PSAC 2, the reason PSAC 2 exists is to relieve the capacity of PSAC 1.
Is that right?
Traffic goes.
To both PSACs.
Okay, yeah, there's just too much traffic and we need another network, PSAC 2.
It's not too much traffic, but...
Yeah, what I'm saying is that if PSAC 2 is down for whatever reasons, there should be like a backup machine somewhere that you can switch on.
Okay, this is down.
Okay, let's switch this one on, and we have two working networks again.
What I don't understand is, explain to me, you're referring the traffic of two systems, PSAC 2 and PSAC 1, and expect them to work.
Wouldn't that overload PSAC 1?
I mean, isn't that common sense?
Thank you for the question.
I do think that understanding the technical implementations and how all the PSACs are related, I think is really critical.
Each PSAC was built to be able to handle independently the full city load.
Okay, what I'm trying to say is that if PSAC 2 is down for whatever reason, there should be a backup PSAC 2 where you can switch on any time while you get the one that's down, you get that to work.
That's what I'm trying to say.
This is like a network redundancy issue, a topology issue that you may want to look at.
Understood.
The challenge with diagnosing the source of the problem is that