4 ms·

Is it me or does it seem that when you are something like Google there should be a process to prevent just this sort of thing?

by dfj225 17y ago

wmf 17y ago
Yes, but everything has bugs. http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Monday/Gill_programatic_N44.pdf http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Monday/Gill_...
- dfj225 17y ago
  Sure, but even if something is faulty I would guess that they have a way to test these updates on only a small portion of their network/traffic (at least much smaller than the 14% they said was affected).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
igorhvr 17y ago
I hate when someone suggests adding process to fix a problem - and I saw this quite a few times already. Most people clearly understand the benefits of adding process, but very few seem to realize the costs. If I tried hard I am pretty sure I could create a checklist with 1000 items for each developer to go through, and no one could argue against any of the items - individually, they would all be ok / necessary / correct. However, if I forced every developer to go through the list every time, for every change, they would - rightly so - feel crushed. With very few exceptions - where a new process is really granted, I see people trying to substitute either thinking or automation by process. Which is a recipe for bureaucracy, and in my view a good part of why working for a BigCo can be so miserable sometimes. A new process should be a last resort, after we answered yes to: a) Is it really beyond us to automate this?, b) Is there some flaw in human beings that will ensure this will repeat? c) Are the consequences of this mistake really serious?
- dfj225 17y ago
  When I said process, I meant automated process. As a programmer, performing calculable tasks by hand is always out of the question :-P
- thras 17y ago
  It turns out that you can reduce the number of surgical instruments left in patients by 33% by implementing checklists. Surgeons won't do it because it feels beneath them.
  - TJensen 17y ago
    So get the nurses to do it for them, which, I believe, is what the researchers who were looking at this had to do.
  - imajes 17y ago
    what bothers me is why this isn't more like 90% (in other words, why you don't check all items in and out - anything else is pretty lame supply chain management)
  - bkudria 17y ago
    And it is. We have computers for this. Specifically, RFID chips, and readers. Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too. Surgical instruments, on the other hand, are easy to replace ;)
    - snprbob86 17y ago
      You don't need to get that fancy. Just paint silhouettes of the instruments onto the counter. Same effect, simpler operation, bonus clutter reduction.
  - eru 17y ago
    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_...
tsally 17y ago
I'm sure they have plenty of safeguards in place. Think about all the times in the last 5 years that Google's service has been seriously interrupted. Oh wait, there aren't any. Their turn around time on this bug was pretty fantastic as well. Discovered, analyzed, patched, and apologized for in under 24 hours. Nice.
- thorax 17y ago
  This is at least the second time this year that they've had a serious/major issue for an hour. The other being the snafu where they marked the entire world as malware. They respond awesomely, but they're not immune to major issues and I doubt it will get any easier for them.
- dfj225 17y ago
  You are right. It's unfair (and all too easy) for someone from the outside to point their finger and say, "Bad! They should have done X." However, the reality is that Google has positioned themselves such that they have quickly become a utility. This goes beyond search, they are a communications network (email, chat) and an ad service among other things. How many websites depend solely on Google AdSense for their revenue? Just like electricity, telephone service, and other utilities, we have come to depend on them for living our daily lives. Loss of service at a large scale cannot be tolerated. This may have been a relatively minor event, but the point remains that it still seems much too easy for such events to take place. I feel that Google should be one of the companies pushing technology in this area forward. Hopefully they will release information on how they plan to prevent this sort of event from occurring in the future.

Is it me or does it seem that when you are something like Google there should be a process to prevent just this sort of thing?

by dfj225 17y ago

Is it me or does it seem that when you are something like Google there should be a process to prevent just this sort of thing?

wmf 17y ago

Yes, but everything has bugs. http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Monday/Gill_programatic_N44.pdf http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Monday/Gill_...

dfj225 17y ago
Sure, but even if something is faulty I would guess that they have a way to test these updates on only a small portion of their network/traffic (at least much smaller than the 14% they said was affected).

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

igorhvr 17y ago

I hate when someone suggests adding process to fix a problem - and I saw this quite a few times already. Most people clearly understand the benefits of adding process, but very few seem to realize the costs. If I tried hard I am pretty sure I could create a checklist with 1000 items for each developer to go through, and no one could argue against any of the items - individually, they would all be ok / necessary / correct. However, if I forced every developer to go through the list every time, for every change, they would - rightly so - feel crushed. With very few exceptions - where a new process is really granted, I see people trying to substitute either thinking or automation by process. Which is a recipe for bureaucracy, and in my view a good part of why working for a BigCo can be so miserable sometimes. A new process should be a last resort, after we answered yes to: a) Is it really beyond us to automate this?, b) Is there some flaw in human beings that will ensure this will repeat? c) Are the consequences of this mistake really serious?

dfj225 17y ago
When I said process, I meant automated process. As a programmer, performing calculable tasks by hand is always out of the question :-P
thras 17y ago
It turns out that you can reduce the number of surgical instruments left in patients by 33% by implementing checklists. Surgeons won't do it because it feels beneath them.
- TJensen 17y ago
  So get the nurses to do it for them, which, I believe, is what the researchers who were looking at this had to do.
- imajes 17y ago
  what bothers me is why this isn't more like 90% (in other words, why you don't check all items in and out - anything else is pretty lame supply chain management)
- bkudria 17y ago
  And it is. We have computers for this. Specifically, RFID chips, and readers. Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too. Surgical instruments, on the other hand, are easy to replace ;)
  - snprbob86 17y ago
    You don't need to get that fancy. Just paint silhouettes of the instruments onto the counter. Same effect, simpler operation, bonus clutter reduction.
- eru 17y ago
  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_...

tsally 17y ago

I'm sure they have plenty of safeguards in place. Think about all the times in the last 5 years that Google's service has been seriously interrupted. Oh wait, there aren't any. Their turn around time on this bug was pretty fantastic as well. Discovered, analyzed, patched, and apologized for in under 24 hours. Nice.

thorax 17y ago
This is at least the second time this year that they've had a serious/major issue for an hour. The other being the snafu where they marked the entire world as malware. They respond awesomely, but they're not immune to major issues and I doubt it will get any easier for them.
dfj225 17y ago
You are right. It's unfair (and all too easy) for someone from the outside to point their finger and say, "Bad! They should have done X." However, the reality is that Google has positioned themselves such that they have quickly become a utility. This goes beyond search, they are a communications network (email, chat) and an ad service among other things. How many websites depend solely on Google AdSense for their revenue? Just like electricity, telephone service, and other utilities, we have come to depend on them for living our daily lives. Loss of service at a large scale cannot be tolerated. This may have been a relatively minor event, but the point remains that it still seems much too easy for such events to take place. I feel that Google should be one of the companies pushing technology in this area forward. Hopefully they will release information on how they plan to prevent this sort of event from occurring in the future.