[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: quality of Service
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: quality of Service
- From: "John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:27:35 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
David Goodman makes a good point. Many publishers - or their contractors do maintain mirror sites; built-in redundancy is vital to the maintenance of continuous and reliable service. Perhaps the best example I know of a company that has always taken this issue seriously is CatchWord, which hosts journals from many publishers, including Taylor & Francis, Mary Ann Liebert, Lawrence Erlbaum, MIT Press etc. CatchWord has not one or two mirror sites, but a world-wide network of over ten servers. This deals with the problem of slow response times due to Internet congestion as well as the failure of any one - or two, three etc - server. John Cox Johnn Cox Associates -----Original Message----- From: David Goodman (dgoodman@Princeton.EDU) <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu> Date: 31 August 2000 21:08 Subject: Re: quality of Service > >The recent and continuing service failure at OUP due to theft of their >service providers computer equipment makes evident the absolute necessity >for any publisher offerring ejournals or databases to provide a mirror >site or other immediately accessible backup. > >It is noteworthy that most of the free preprint sites offer this facility. >For an enterprise charging money for the service not to offer it is >inexcusably immature business practice. > >I think this requirement should be added to the standard contract terms. >The use of electronic media to replace paper cannot be taken as a >responsible proposition otherwise.
- Prev by Date: Re: Fairchild Publications
- Next by Date: Re: Internet agreements
- Prev by thread: Re: quality of Service
- Next by thread: Re: Quality of Service
- Index(es):