July 15, 2015 — Gravic Publishes New Article on Why an Active Passive Business Continuity Solution is Not Good Enough

Gravic PubStock photo of a man skydiving out of an airplanelishes New Article on Why an Active/Passive Business Continuity Solution is Not Good Enough, in the July-August issue of The Connection. The costs of prolonged downtime of critical business IT systems are significant (potentially to the point of closing the company). These potential costs are compounded by the fact that the many events which can lead to such outages are not rare; it is a case of when, not if. This likelihood of outage events is only acceptable if you have a complete, documented, and well-tested business continuity plan in place. Maybe you think that you do, but the data simply does not support this idea. Many users select, and never get beyond, a basic active/passive architecture, but it has many issues, which can prevent a successful and timely failover to a standby system. Read this article to see whether this false sense of security applies to you, and how Shadowbase Sizzling-Hot-Takeover (SZT, also known as “Sizzling-Hot-Standby”) and fully active/active data replication architectures make failover faults and extended outages a thing of the past.