4 ms·

Before census day they were predicting two thirds of the 10 million Australian households to complete the census online. They stated their site had been tested

by stirlo 10y ago

Before census day they were predicting two thirds of the 10 million Australian households to complete the census online. They stated their site had been tested with half a million concurrent users and was able to sustain double that. Unfortunately no one seems to have considered that the majority of users would do it after dinner (say 6-10pm). Take the 6.6 million users divide it by the time frame and it was never going to work with a 1 million per hour capacity. What is interesting is with IBM paying out they must have failed to deliver the required capacity. I thought it more likely the government had not tendered it properly and requested a lower capacity than needed but obviously IBM just tried to cut costs and under resource the operation.

ACow_Adonis 10y ago
I noticed the exact same thing. Read about their load testing in the paper, did a quick back of the envelope, and concluded before the census that they hadn't texted big enough. Which brings us back to another question: was there even a DOS attack? I've seen any little technical details on the attacks, and I know myself, like a lot of other Australians logged on behind vpns. When the site wouldn't load, of course we hit refresh...
- 6nf 10y ago
  There likely was no DDoS. This was an early guess based on the symptoms at the time, but after investigating IBM never claimed DDoS in the days following census night.
  - suprjami 10y ago
    No there was no DDoS. Multiple Network Ops groups at the time said they saw no malicious traffic the whole night, either domestically or from international sources. The report calls the DoS an "event" rather than an "attack", carefully worded so that tech journalists would pick up on the wrong thing, but clear that it was not malicious intentional traffic. The DoS was the Australian public attempting to use an online government service.
    - alfiedotwtf 10y ago
      I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. Follow along: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/abs_preparedness_of_2016_census/ https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/abs_preparedness_of_2...
candiodari 10y ago
I often wonder why companies and governments even trust large organisations like IBM over individuals they've interviewed themselves. I mean, it's not like IBM's consultant's competence is any secret. IBM is also trying to make it worse, or at least, not making the competence factor any priority. Rather, it's cost over everything: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ibm-layoffs-1-month-severance-2016-3 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ibm-layoffs-1-month-severa... I mean how do you get away with hiring IBM (or accenture, PwC, didata, deloitte or, may God help us, Tata or something like that, where cost of paycheck is literally the only factor in hiring).
- ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  Such individuals are usually unable to detect real signal in the thing they're hiring for, so interviewing in and of itself doesn't provide them any qualitative information. They also know the people judging them are in the same boat. Thus they fall back to the only thing understandable to themselves and people who will judge them: big brand and prestige/shininess. If the project succeeds, you take credit. If it fails, you can't be blamed for "buying the biggest and the best" (even if the biggest and the best are just a bunch of stary-eyed ignorant grads with a salesman/project manager at the head). /that's the good version. The bad version points out how many of these firms gets business through networks, personal connections and "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" type dealings. //it's not a rant if it's true.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  Liability. If the project fails, it is not your fault. I cynically suspect that whoever drafts these contracts might even believe that by agreeing on an excessively expensive failure clause, failure will thus not occur — after all, it is legally covered. We see this in The Netherlands as well (and I suspect it is a global phenomenon). Government needs software, big-name consultancy firm gets the job, builds stuff that won't work or barely functions, project implodes or is delivered in a half-baked state. Repeat ad nauseam. These companies (Cap Gemini comes to mind) thrive by these projects, even though most seem to fail or end up underwhelming. There appears to be some degree of corruption there on the side of these contractors — investigative journalism has uncovered several questionable practices. Some part of my wonders if having a well-funded government department dedicated to these projects that creates and maintains the (free!) software needed is not a more tenable (and cheaper) approach. On the other hand, large government-driven software projects may just be impossible to deliver at this point; we simply lack the know-how to prevent the inevitable implosion of such complex projects.

by stirlo 10y ago

ACow_Adonis 10y ago

I noticed the exact same thing. Read about their load testing in the paper, did a quick back of the envelope, and concluded before the census that they hadn't texted big enough. Which brings us back to another question: was there even a DOS attack? I've seen any little technical details on the attacks, and I know myself, like a lot of other Australians logged on behind vpns. When the site wouldn't load, of course we hit refresh...

6nf 10y ago
There likely was no DDoS. This was an early guess based on the symptoms at the time, but after investigating IBM never claimed DDoS in the days following census night.
- suprjami 10y ago
  No there was no DDoS. Multiple Network Ops groups at the time said they saw no malicious traffic the whole night, either domestically or from international sources. The report calls the DoS an "event" rather than an "attack", carefully worded so that tech journalists would pick up on the wrong thing, but clear that it was not malicious intentional traffic. The DoS was the Australian public attempting to use an online government service.
  - alfiedotwtf 10y ago
    I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. Follow along: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/abs_preparedness_of_2016_census/ https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/abs_preparedness_of_2...

candiodari 10y ago

I often wonder why companies and governments even trust large organisations like IBM over individuals they've interviewed themselves. I mean, it's not like IBM's consultant's competence is any secret. IBM is also trying to make it worse, or at least, not making the competence factor any priority. Rather, it's cost over everything: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ibm-layoffs-1-month-severance-2016-3 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ibm-layoffs-1-month-severa... I mean how do you get away with hiring IBM (or accenture, PwC, didata, deloitte or, may God help us, Tata or something like that, where cost of paycheck is literally the only factor in hiring).

ACow_Adonis 10y ago
Such individuals are usually unable to detect real signal in the thing they're hiring for, so interviewing in and of itself doesn't provide them any qualitative information. They also know the people judging them are in the same boat. Thus they fall back to the only thing understandable to themselves and people who will judge them: big brand and prestige/shininess. If the project succeeds, you take credit. If it fails, you can't be blamed for "buying the biggest and the best" (even if the biggest and the best are just a bunch of stary-eyed ignorant grads with a salesman/project manager at the head). /that's the good version. The bad version points out how many of these firms gets business through networks, personal connections and "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" type dealings. //it's not a rant if it's true.
Freak_NL 10y ago
Liability. If the project fails, it is not your fault. I cynically suspect that whoever drafts these contracts might even believe that by agreeing on an excessively expensive failure clause, failure will thus not occur — after all, it is legally covered. We see this in The Netherlands as well (and I suspect it is a global phenomenon). Government needs software, big-name consultancy firm gets the job, builds stuff that won't work or barely functions, project implodes or is delivered in a half-baked state. Repeat ad nauseam. These companies (Cap Gemini comes to mind) thrive by these projects, even though most seem to fail or end up underwhelming. There appears to be some degree of corruption there on the side of these contractors — investigative journalism has uncovered several questionable practices. Some part of my wonders if having a well-funded government department dedicated to these projects that creates and maintains the (free!) software needed is not a more tenable (and cheaper) approach. On the other hand, large government-driven software projects may just be impossible to deliver at this point; we simply lack the know-how to prevent the inevitable implosion of such complex projects.