Smitty wrote:
>
> On Friday 29 June 2001 22:13, you wrote:
> > edoc wrote:
> > > Perhaps we should spread the word to flood the Internet and
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> > > > For those sluggers who follow the daily events:
> > > > Today the computer system used at nasdaq crashed for an hour.
> >
> > As much as I dislike M$, let's get the facts straight... It was an
> > MCI Worldcom tech running a diagnostic test. HUMAN ERROR, not the
> > evil empire.
>
> Brian,
> I suggest you get your facts straight. Here is a quote from the article you
> hyperlinked: "
[snipped]
> > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-2
> >9-2001/0001524779&EDATE=
That is Worldcom's official, let's put a spin on this, cover their @ss,
position. I offered it as another opinion on the issues, not as the
final word. There are many news agencies reporting on the outage.
Here's
an example:
http://mktnews.nasdaq.com/newsv2/pullstory_nasd.asp?textpath=D:\www\Nasdaq\news\35\2001\06\29\200106291816DOWJONESDJONLINE000595.html&usymbol=9999
or this:
"The outage, affecting Nasdaq's SelectNet and Small Order Execution
Systems, came at about 2:30 p.m. New York time. Nasdaq president
Rick Ketchum said a technician at Worldcom Inc. caused the problem.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
``We've never experienced this before,'' he said.
WorldCom said the glitch occurred during routine testing. ``We very
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
much regret this market interruption,'' Chief Executive Bernard
Ebbers said in a statement. "
{emphasis mine}
Worldcom runs the NASDAQ _network_ not the computer systems. Networks
on that scale, are usually multi-vendor but probably include Cisco
routers, switches and load balancers. Heck it could include products
from any of these:
http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/partners.stm
I submit it's human error (or at least poor judgment) to be running
such tests during production hours. It's an even bigger mistake to
allow the development and production networks/systems mix in such a
way to let a catastrophic failure propagate between them.
My initial reply was simply intended to caution edoc before ``flooding
the Internet and letters-to-the-editor'' with FUD.
Anyway this thread has strayed far enough off topic for this list.
There's more discussion on NANOG:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/
-- Linux - the ultimate Windows Service Pack
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:14:28 EDT