GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2002-01 > 1010011360


From: Liz Read <>
Subject: Re: 1901 Census - well, that was a non-event!
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 22:42:40 GMT
References: <614d8d34.0201020552.554fd3f9@posting.google.com>, <3c3313a4.108926783@news.cis.dfn.de>, <3C33255A.3675@dircon.co.uk>


On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:20:58 +0000, Liz <> wrote:

>Sadly previous examples of crashing servers with new online databases,
>which PRO seem not to have studied, have led to the entire site being
>taken down and reworked. Given that they had a specific deadline date
>for this one and other examples of disaster to study might it not have
>been possible for them to get things right for the launch? I'm not
>technically able to comment but common-sense would indicate that being
>over-powered on launch and later being able to 'power down' once the
>steady rate of usage could be calculated might have been the way to go?
>Instead of having to frantically beef up in an emergency?

You are quite right. I've spent the last 20 years testing computer systems for big
organisations, so I am probably in a position to know.

At a fairly late stage in the process you do something known as performance and
stress testing. You need to at least *know* what happens to your system under maximum
load, even if that means knowing it crashes at x transactions a minute.

The problem is, almost nobody wants to (knows how to!) do the technical testing so
it often doesn't get done. With client-server and Internet applications it's a very
hard test to perform, as you'd have to simulate hundreds of transactions a second
hitting your server, no easy task even if you do have the right simulation software.
It's almost as hard to do a theoretical test using algorithms, even with the evidence
they could have had from similar previous events.

They could have looked at leasing extra server capacity and bandwidth for the first
couple of weeks, though this would impact on project costs. Also a phased release
(say a county a week, not that we'd have liked that either).

My guess is they did none of the above. The Government has a dreadful record with
computer systems, largely because they have a shortage of people technical enough to
know what to include in the contract and service-level agreements. (Think Passport
Office)

Still, at least most of us weren't trying to use an Austrian cash machine today:-)

Liz Read

This thread: