Re: [tlug] Now, this is getting out of hand!

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-06-05 20:24 +0900 (Thu), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Josh Glover writes:
> 
>  > I think he meant that you could tell people more about the economics
>  > behind the idea that sometimes it is more expensive to analyse the
>  > requirements than just try something and see if it is good enough.
> 
> Well, I know what he was getting at, but there are limits to what any
> science can do.  This is a matter of empirical fact, not something
> that's particularly subject to analysis.

Ok, I've gone back to my original post to see just what I was saying, and
it turned out to be this:

] Stephen can tell you more about this I'm sure, but it turns out that
] this is a basic issue with buying data-centre gear: it's often more
] far more expensive to figure out how well something is working than it
] is just to (depending on your situation) to buy stuff that (might be)
] guaranteed to work well or to buy stuff that's cheap and hope.

This seems to be a matter entirely amenable to analysis, and in dire
need of it, really. The emperical facts are not even the topic here;
it's the question of how much in the way of resources one should spend
to get, or not get, those facts. To spend, say, $2000 to find out that
a $2000 switch will do just as well in your particular situation as a
$3000 one that's known to work is obviously counterproductive.

Surely someone's done some research on good strategies for making these
sorts of decisions. It might be the game theory guys, rather than the
economists, but those are rather related disciplines, anyway.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com