Several months of downtime would cost them more than doing the upgrades in the background and spending just a few days at most for the final push.
We're talking about servers, computers, here. You don't have to take down a server to copy files from it to another one. It's done repeatedly for backup already. So company would set up another server with the "new stuff", syphon transferable data to it from backups (to avoid overworking the live servers) over a longer while, then when they would be nearly caught up issue a few-days-long maintenance at most to stop generation of new data and update the new servers with what was not in the backups.
Seriously, people. Months of downtime won't happen if the original is still giving money. Downtime costs more than avoiding it.



Reply With Quote





