London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

#11

Post by IDisposableHero » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 3:42 PM UTC

Stormbringer wrote: post #6

trezor wrote: post #2

Remember when there were some issues with LSE's Windows-based solution? You had Linux/FOSS fanboys all over saying that this was obviously the fault of Windows and what not and that Linux would fare much better. I'm wondering what sort of response they will have to this and why they weren't as eager to report this to social news-sites as they were with the Windows-story. Maybe this will finally make them realize that…

What happened with the previous system was that it dragged on for years and years, with many expensive delays and poor technological decisions. By contrast, the Linux system is up and running much faster. So yeah, you can try to spin it as 'Linux is just as bad as Microsoft', but if one takes 5 years and is a complete disaster, and the other one takes 2 years and has a few hiccups, I know which one I prefer. Disclaim…

You're not making a persuasive case to me that the programming language and OS, rather than the developement methods, management style, and expertise of the coding team were the factors that determined sucess or failure.

Re: London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

#12

Post by JonoW » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 4:41 PM UTC

Stormbringer wrote: post #6

trezor wrote: post #2

Remember when there were some issues with LSE's Windows-based solution? You had Linux/FOSS fanboys all over saying that this was obviously the fault of Windows and what not and that Linux would fare much better. I'm wondering what sort of response they will have to this and why they weren't as eager to report this to social news-sites as they were with the Windows-story. Maybe this will finally make them realize that…

What happened with the previous system was that it dragged on for years and years, with many expensive delays and poor technological decisions. By contrast, the Linux system is up and running much faster. So yeah, you can try to spin it as 'Linux is just as bad as Microsoft', but if one takes 5 years and is a complete disaster, and the other one takes 2 years and has a few hiccups, I know which one I prefer. Disclaim…

> So yeah, you can try to spin it as 'Linux is just as bad as Microsoft', but if one takes 5 years and is a complete disaster, and the other one takes 2 years and has a few hiccups, I know which one I prefer.

The point being made is that the problems in both the previous and current systems were probably nothing to do with the underlying OS/platform, but because of some incompetency in the design or implementation of this specific project.

Re: London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

#13

Post by rbanffy » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

mithaler wrote: post #8

Vic-nyc wrote: post #3

Short summary of the article. The outage was caused by the introduction of new requirements by LSE for end-of-day price reporting. The data vendors were the ones who had the responsibility to adhere to these new rules, by making changes to their systems. Unfortunately, the "big bang" approach to the switch-over proved fatal. From the article: “I am astonished they did not run the systems in parallel,” said a source a…

Why am I reminded of Douglas Adams? "All the planning charts have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now..."

I seriously doubt the plans were that far away. The transition was not announced the day before after all.

Re: London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

#14

Post by regularfry » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 8:07 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #10

alecco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a counter reaction. The previous system's advertisement campaign was very strong and I remember people implying it was a better solution than a Linux/FOSS alternative. Microsoft had a huge campaign and it was one of their main examples on what their new .Net platform was capable of doing. Also this article has nothing to do with downtime but with issues on closing prices. The LSE acquired a mostly unknown comp…

These seem to indicate systemic problems with the LSE. That makes me wonder if it was really justified to blame Windows Server and SQL Server the last time around.

I don't know. In this case the outsourcer seems to be a lowest-bidder offshorer. Last time it was Microsoft. I don't know if there's anything that can be learnt from this.

Re: London Stock Exchange: What really went wrong

#15

Post by CountSessine » Mon, Mar 07, 2011, 8:23 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #10

alecco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a counter reaction. The previous system's advertisement campaign was very strong and I remember people implying it was a better solution than a Linux/FOSS alternative. Microsoft had a huge campaign and it was one of their main examples on what their new .Net platform was capable of doing. Also this article has nothing to do with downtime but with issues on closing prices. The LSE acquired a mostly unknown comp…

These seem to indicate systemic problems with the LSE. That makes me wonder if it was really justified to blame Windows Server and SQL Server the last time around.

That makes me wonder if it was really justified to blame Windows Server and SQL Server the last time around

Maybe, maybe not. But Microsoft probably should have thought twice about featuring TradElect as a star .NET deployment given the generally poor development practices that seem to have been at work here.