Run To Failure vs Preventive Maintenance

Developers should consider Run To Failure for non-essential systems, prototypes, or low-risk components where downtime is acceptable and repair is straightforward meets developers should learn preventive maintenance to ensure the long-term health and performance of software systems, hardware, and development environments. Here's our take.

Run To Failure

Nice Pick

Developers should consider Run To Failure for non-essential systems, prototypes, or low-risk components where downtime is acceptable and repair is straightforward

Pros

• It is useful in agile or lean development environments to avoid over-engineering and reduce maintenance overhead, such as in disposable infrastructure or during rapid experimentation phases
• Related to: devops, agile-methodology

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Preventive Maintenance

Developers should learn preventive maintenance to ensure the long-term health and performance of software systems, hardware, and development environments

Pros

• It is crucial for maintaining production servers, databases, and CI/CD pipelines to avoid unexpected outages and data loss
• Related to: devops, site-reliability-engineering

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

Use Run To Failure if: You want it is useful in agile or lean development environments to avoid over-engineering and reduce maintenance overhead, such as in disposable infrastructure or during rapid experimentation phases and can live with specific tradeoffs depend on your use case.

Use Preventive Maintenance if: You prioritize it is crucial for maintaining production servers, databases, and ci/cd pipelines to avoid unexpected outages and data loss over what Run To Failure offers.

The Bottom Line

Run To Failure wins

Developers should consider Run To Failure for non-essential systems, prototypes, or low-risk components where downtime is acceptable and repair is straightforward