Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Andrew McGlashan
<andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
> On 5/08/2014 5:44 AM, Erwan David wrote:
>> Le 04/08/2014 21:34, Tom H a écrit :
>>>
>>> Suppose that you have a 16-node cluster, some patches were applied to
>>> the systems overnight, a mistake was made, and you have to correct
>>> this mistake on all of the systems during trading hours. Once you get
>>> all the OKs that are needed for this kind of emergency change, the
>>> head of the trading desk that uses that cluster calls you and says
>>> "I'm going to be on the line for as long as you're working on our
>>> system." So you fix one node, reboot it, make sure that it's back in
>>> the cluster and doing its job, and fix another, etc. You can be sure
>>> that everyone's happier that the systems boot quickly and that the
>>> cluster was running with 15 rather than 16 nodes for as few minutes as
>>> possible (because you can be sure that the fact that this cluster
>>> wasn't running at full capacity for X minutes will come up in
>>> managerial meetings, both in IT ones and in IT-Business ones).
>
> The argument here is likely that the upgrade should have been tested on
> a test cluster FIRST and perhaps extensively -- if you have that many
> servers in play, you should have a development, test and production
> environment to work with and very stringent change control methods in place.
Come on! Changes go through dev and uat before being rolled out to
prod. The night-shift sysadmin who made the changes screwed up. It
happens...
Reply to: