Linked by David Adams on Thu 1st Mar 2012 22:53 UTC, submitted by judgen
Microsoft The outage on Microsoft's Windows Azure cloud computing platform that caused the government's G-Cloud service to go offline was the result of a calculation error caused by the extra day in February due to the leap year. Writing on the Azure blog the firm's corporate vice president for service and cloud, Bill Laing, said while the firm had still to fully determine the cause of the issue, the extra date in the month appeared the most likely cause.
Thread beginning with comment 509262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wtf? Really?
by B. Janssen on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 09:58 UTC in reply to "Wtf? Really?"
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

The reason is that they didn't think about leap years? In 2012, this is the error they made? It's not like it's some unexpected even we didn't see coming.
You know, I would have found this acceptable in someone's pet OSS project but not in a global service from MS that you probably pay an arm and a leg for.

Agreed, that's just embarrassing. But...

If I was the guy who was responsible for this in "the government" I would have been having a serious talk with my account rep already and it would not have been easy for them convince me to continue using their product.

...you would only complain and try to get some monetary recognition out of it, but you wouldn't quit using the service. And you know why. This is not just picking up your ball and going, it's picking up the goal posts, the fences, the benches, the lawn and the parking lot, too. I don't claim to know how large the gov's data is on Azure, but I'm sure it is somewhere in the region where you don't move on a whim.

And on top of that 1 day in 366 is probably well within agreed outage levels (I'd guess they have 99.9%, so they would be covered.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Wtf? Really?
by Soulbender on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 10:29 in reply to "RE: Wtf? Really?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This is not just picking up your ball and going, it's picking up the goal posts, the fences, the benches, the lawn and the parking lot, too.


In the short run you're probably right but the contract will be renegotiated at some point and I would make damn sure there's was a viable alternative at that point. Of course, I would probably not have bought into Azure in the first place so it's a bit moot.

And on top of that 1 day in 366 is probably well within agreed outage levels


Could be but on the other hand, isn't the cloud all about NOT having these kind of problems? You know, scalability, redundancy and all that jazz that the sales rep probably fed the gov't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wtf? Really?
by Lennie on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 11:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Wtf? Really?"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It just means someone else, which is dedicated to the task, is doing that kind of work. That doesn't mean you get less problems.

It might mean you get more problems, because doing things at a large scale isn't easier.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wtf? Really?
by B. Janssen on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 16:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Wtf? Really?"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

I think, I wasn't clear. The FU is reprimandable, no doubt.

My line of thinking was that at some point in deployment you pass a point of no return where you are effectively locked-in into the cloud of someone else, because moving becomes very expensive, even more expensive than putting up with a FU.

I guess, what I'm really trying to say is that cloud services lock-in your data and you will suffer the consequences and like it. Beware of the cloud, seriously.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Wtf? Really?
by cdude on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 14:28 in reply to "RE: Wtf? Really?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

"And on top of that 1 day in 366 is probably well within agreed outage levels (I'd guess they have 99.9%, so they would be covered.)"

Let me show you some magic:
100-1/366*100 => 99.73%
99.73>=99.9 => false

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wtf? Really?
by B. Janssen on Fri 2nd Mar 2012 16:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Wtf? Really?"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

By Jove! Please, civilized man, teach me your mathmagics!


I guess, what I'm trying to say is: what were you thinking when you decided to snark instead of simply correcting my mistake?

Reply Parent Score: 2