It seems that this wasn't as routine as these things aught to be but rarely are.
NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
21–30 of 233 posts
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#22Systems with such significant potential impact, and in industries where lack of financial investment in their continuity is a deliberate choice have very little excuse to be passing the buck to grunts for basic process flaws that can be triggered by individual error.
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#23These "issue traced to staffer" stories sound like management cover up for management/system shortcomings to me. Systems with such significant potential impact, and in industries where lack of financial investment in their continuity is a deliberate choice have very little excuse to be passing the buck to grunts for basic process flaws that can be triggered by individual error.
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#24Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#25[flagged]
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#26I am short a couple dozen naked Feb 3 calls on a lot of affected tickers and almost had a heart attack when looking at one of them on my phone. Thankfully I was not in front of my computer at the time because I have no idea how my broker was managing my margin at open.
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#27Seems so weird to not have automated checks for something that seems to be described as "someone left the light on" and also not have the exchange automatically initiate itself. However, it still isn't that clear what the problem was. Were prices not "real" or correct? Stuff like this will happen more and more. We treat software driven systems rather recklessly.
More automation -> more code -> more things to go wrong
Process changes that people have to remember or more systems to prevent the issue. So I don't get your statement related to this article
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#28Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
More automation -> more code -> more things to go wrong
The great thing about automation is the breadth, depth and speed at which I can propagate mistakes.
It's clearly not optimized for efficient use of personnel, but the personnel complement will have been designed to provide sufficient people at all times and the cost of getting it wrong can be very large indeed.
Re: NYSE Tuesday opening mayhem traced to a staffer who left a backup system running
#30These "issue traced to staffer" stories sound like management cover up for management/system shortcomings to me. Systems with such significant potential impact, and in industries where lack of financial investment in their continuity is a deliberate choice have very little excuse to be passing the buck to grunts for basic process flaws that can be triggered by individual error.
This. If an individual's mistake can take out your business you have a process control problem and that is owned by management.