Changes between Version 4 and Version 5 of LEGACY - LAMP proposal

Timestamp:

11/16/10 12:18:36 (14 years ago)

Author:

jeff.lusted

Comment:

--

LEGACY - LAMP proposal

@@ -12 +12 @@
     1. Speed of response for a user
     1. Speed of restore after failure
+    1. Can we afford to lose transactions?
     1. Turn around time for a support request
   * Type of data stored and usage
@@ -28 +29 @@
 
 I'm not sure exactly what this would mean in practice. Perhaps it's just a rule of thumb. But there are important considerations behind this...
+
+  * Will the live production systems (eg: Labels Webapp, caTissue, i2b2) be managed by RCS? If not BRICCS must supply the management side of things. 
+  * The level of management might need to vary. Take test systems. This could be Unit testing, Integration testing, or Acceptance testing. I can see this range of testing being required where the management side of a live system is complicated. See next point.
+  * Whoever manages the i2b2 data warehouse (University or UHLT), the live systems cannot be managed in isolation. The two systems must be synchronized in some way. A failure on one side will have ramifications for the other.
+