Re: Anyone know why the Alpha market is so so quiet?
- From: Arne Vajhøj <arne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:06:50 -0400
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
Main, Kerry wrote:As I mentioned earlier, it is not the roll-out of the patches that is
the issue. Heck, that is relatively minor as you can even easily do
this with all of the Windows security patches.
The big issue by far is the re-certification and testing of important
business applications with all of the monthly OS security patches.
For small and some medium businesses with small numbers of users,
this is not an issue as they simply apply the patch and reboot. If a
OS security patch breaks the kernel or an application, then they can
simply roll-back with minimal impact as the numbers of users are not
that large.
That is usually not the case with large IT environments with mission
critical environments.
OK. Just so you guys "get it", here is a real example.
A system software upgrade is tested and validated. To be deployed at 8 different sites over a period of 1 year, sheduled deployment determined by PM downtime of 24*7 manufacturing operations - which by its nature is planned a long way in advance.
2 smaller sites go live before a memory leak rears its ugly head in a large site, number 3, crashing the application and stalling part of the factory shipping processes. The resulting cleanup operation consumes DBA and sysadmin time at every occurrance and occurs at different intervals depending on the transaction volume of the factory - the larger the factory, the larger the problem. We are talking daily on a large factory.
The IT troubleshooters get on the job and isolate the error, create a simple reproducer and report it as priority 1 bug to the supplier, who duly fix it within 3 days! The IT guys check out the reproducer and the instances of live code where the problem was evident and verify that the supplier patch has indeed solved the problem.
Q1: Which version of the software was installed at the following 5 sites?
Q:2 When was the software updated at the 3 already installed sites?
A1: The broken version.
A2: Never (yet)
In order to release a systems software upgrade, the entire application must pass certification. This is an $7B pr. year manufacturing company - a houshold name - SOX compliant and accutely aware of the necessity for application certification before deployment.
Why you ask?
Because the cost of bringing a larger factory down completely is like $50,000 per hour, while the cost of having a DBA cleanup the stalls is zero, because he is already sitting there and it is in his job description. The risk is evaluated, the costs apportioned and the decision made. A management no-brainer, because the certification requirement and procedures are very clear and unambiguous. As bizarre as it seems, this is the daily life of people who maintain and operate the big iron that controls large manufacturing - not just that particular site.
When the application is recertified on the patched vendor software, the patch to the vendor software will be applied to the production environment in a controlled and phased manner - not before.
Here endeth the lesson in reality for you guys who wouldn't know a real high-availability corporate production environment if it landed on your head!
But the conclusion is that Kerry arguments against Linux does not
hold water.
Because if those systems where running Linux - how many security
patches would have been installed on them in that period ?
Arne
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Anyone know why the Alpha market is so so quiet?
- Next by Date: Re: HOWTO: Ignoring wildly OT threads
- Previous by thread: Re: Anyone know why the Alpha market is so so quiet?
- Next by thread: RE: Anyone know why the Alpha market is so so quiet?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
