X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:03:53 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from jrcda.com ([69.36.178.59] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.4) with ESMTP id 1755855 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:50:13 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.36.178.59; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (cbl-238-61.conceptcable.com [207.170.238.61] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by jrcda.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0D5nM2I026624 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:49:24 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jrcda.com: twinchin owned process doing -bs X-Original-Message-ID: <45A872E0.6020904@starband.net> X-Original-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:49:20 -0800 From: "Hamid A. Wasti" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Connectors References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Crowe wrote:

Does anyone have any comments on the idea of using connectors? Does it pose any questions of reliability or potential failure?

Years of experience has taught me that when I start troubleshooting anything, I always start at the connectors. Invariably, they are the single biggest source of failures.

Like politicians, there are no good connectors. There are bad ones, really bad ones, really really bad ones and it gets worse from there. If you are unable to avoid using a connector altogether, then choose the least bad one you can get and afford.

Regards,

Hamid