Slashdot Mirror
London Stock Exchange To Abandon Windows
BBCWatcher writes "Computerworld's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the London Stock Exchange is abandoning its Microsoft Windows-based trading platform: 'Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .... Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ...'"
...Huzzah!
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products.
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
Make your own damn clicky.
Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE (London Stock Exchange)'s Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day. While the LSE denied that the collapse was TradElect's fault, they also refused to explain what the problem really wa.
Right, so it wasn't M$'s TradElect's fault, therefore it clearly was M$'s TradElect's fault. Someone give this guy a job at the FBI!
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
It's not Windows vs Linux.
It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
TradElect never managed its performance promises, which suggests lies from marketing and / or programmers unable to deliver what they were asked to. Despite what the Linux fanboys love to say, inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.
This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software. The OS is irrelevant here, except to fanboys of either side.
"Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation"
This just made my day. Now i can go back to bed.
Thanks!
I'm in the industry, so I have a little more background on this. They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years. It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture. Other reasons why the system sucks: It can only handle about 10,000 orders/second, and has latency numbers that are incredibly high (5 milliseconds+).
Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well.
TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster.
Did the project. They needed a dedicated response time in the 1/100th second range and used a combination of Windows, SQL Server and .Net!
The project was doomed from day 0!
The article is at fault here, Windows alone is not at fault it is the entire stack beginning from the OS up to the implementation language which is at fault!
NYSE and OMX both run Linux based systems. I trade on OMX Stockholm and there is a lot of hickups. I've heard a lot of bad things about NYSE too.
No change is schedule for September. And yes, I know.
They're abandoning TradElect and the platform it happened to be on. The OS is really a background to all of this. The primary cause of the switch has more to do with TradElect sucking than anything else. Having worked on the tech side of the finance industry, I am not at all surprised. They have some of the worst programmers in the world. Standard software methodology is rarely embraced. Unit tests? Code review? What's that? At the hedge fund where I worked, basically any time a developer left someone either had to pick up the pieces of crap he wrote or start over. Almost everyone choose the latter. I remember one morning one of the applications stopped working and we realized it's because we retired an old DB server and moved it to a new host. I asked the developer to just point it to the new host. They couldn't because the dumbasses had hard coded the hostname! They couldn't change it without a recompile! This was at one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, at the time at least. The problem was that none of the partners knew anything about software development so they didn't know if the CTO they hired was any good. They went by stupid things like names of the school he was from and names of his previous employers. His previous employers probably did the same. Software development in finance is a giant circle jerk.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
"Developers! Developers! Developers!" and all that.
And the problem COULD be that Windows just doesn't work for what is needed.
...is just the WRONG platform for this. Stock Exchange, like many transaction based business, needs real time systems and Windows 2003 plus SQL as far I know don't make a RT platform.
Windows has been known for ages to cause literally thousands of bugs in thousands of apps! On Linux, for instance, my Firefox 1.0 that came with my Ubuntu disto does not have to be updated every week or so.
Yeah I read those too ;) So windows issue or not, it is a Microsoft problem :
to wit; page 4:
"In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange to ensure not only that they understood their immediate requirements, but that the solution fitted their long-term business plans as specified in the TRM project."
and
"Robin Paine, Chief Technical Officer at the Exchange, says: âoeThe London Stock Exchange was looking for a responsive partner to engage across all phases of the Technology Roadmap programme. The collaborative approach Microsoft offered made it an ideal choice."
Any more questions on whether Microsoft was "really" involved? Then go do your own research -- there never was any doubt.
Accenture, a division of AON, has an history of outsourcing its programming in India. Even their own internal accounting software programming is done in India, something that upsets its employees, directors and clients, who get to have many billing errors and delays.
No regression testing is done and since the Indian programmers do not fully understand the business processes, there are often major flaws in their software which force complete recompilation of the software.
And AON / Accenture is supposed to be a world leader in finance / management? I don't know where they picked up this reputation. They must have a very well trained marketing team!
Not surprising that their TradElect platform is a total mess and that London Stock Exchange abandons it...
IF the article had said "We looked into this system in some detail, albeit after we'd bought it, and discovered that anything based on Windows was fundamentally incapable of meeting our needs. So we've decided to move", then I would take it more seriously.
As it is, it sounds like a political move from a new managing director who's trying to make themselves out to be as different as possible from the previous one - and one of the ways they're doing that is to ditch the computer system. The fact that the old system runs Windows and the obvious alternative runs Linux is neither here nor there.
Face facts, it's just as possible to produce a lousy system based on Linux as it is on Windows.
I don’t know if Accenture sucks, but Microsoft itself was involved in first person in the development of the project (they were proud to announce this until now).
The fact that not even Microsoft’s involvement was able to make the system meet its requirements looks *very* indicative to me.
I worked on trading systems at the CBOE for a couple of years and one thing I can say for sure is that the only Microsoft systems there are the front-ends for the traders who insist on Windows. All the back-ends, where the real activity takes place, everything is Linux. So, only the trader GUIs are Windows, and everything else is Linux running on x86 blades - racks and racks of them. We never got a virus or trojan on the trading systems, but we were scrubbing viruses and other malware off the traders' front-ends all the time. Anyway, when I read about the LSE going with a Microsoft solution for their trading infrastructure, I could only shake my head and say "Remember Denver International Airport!"...
"Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well." - by Jerky McNaughty (1391) on Friday July 03, @09:40AM (#28571007)
NASDAQ is an example of this, & yes: NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:
----
NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:
http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005
&/or
NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/
"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down."
+
Case Studies - Financial Services:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]
"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries
NASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members. As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."
----
NOW - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare
"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."
----
AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, & speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable & running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!
APK
P.S.=? Personally, & especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, & the NASDAQ data I just provided here)? Well - I think a great deal of stability & uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects), as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Opera
From Microsoft's case study http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=200042
In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange to ensure not only that they understood their immediate requirements, but that the solution fitted their long-term business plans as specified in the TRM project.
Microsoft was equally involved in this project no matter how you try to spin it.
I never understood why Microsoft made a specific server for stock exchanges anyways. It sure does e-mail great though.
Mere facts backed up by references are nothing compared to what you want to believe - silence him!
Do projects of a similar scope on Windows/SQL Server succeed while others fail? I contend that the answer is yes. Here's the secret....the programmers and customers assigned to work on the custom development project and their skills, ability, intelligence and maturity will determine the success of the project. This isn't a platform failure. It's a people failure.
"Stock Exchange, like many transaction based business, needs real time systems and Windows 2003 plus SQL" - by ihavenospine (541249) on Friday July 03, @09:52AM (#28571113)
Correct, & agreed, 110% (with evidence thereof): NASDAQ is an example of this, & yes - NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:
----
FIRST - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare
"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."
----
NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:
http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005
&/or
NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/
"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down."
+
Case Studies - Financial Services:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]
"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries
NASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members. As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."
----
AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, & speed on Windows, AND, in a high tpm environs (and, in a Stock Exchange, specifically)...
(Keeping stable & running F A S T, + "24x7", & for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!)
APK
P.S.=> Personally, & especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, & the NASDAQ data I just provided here)?
Well - I think a great deal of stability & uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engin
In other news, the London Stock Exchange will shortly be abandoning the pound, as well.
DOS?
CP/M?
VMS?
OS/400?
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Microsoft promised their operating system was capable of meeting demands. Microsoft was heavily involved in the implementation of the system.
Microsoft knew their operating systems don't do real-time processing, but insisted they could meet the demands anyway.
I seriously doubt this is a "political move". The cost of this transition will be high, and if their current system was salvageable they'd keep it.
"Mere facts backed up by references are nothing compared to what you want to believe - silence him!" - by gazbo (517111) on Friday July 03, @10:21AM (#28571401)
Yea, "gee... what good are facts & backing references, + how foolish of me to use them to back up my statements!"
(Oh well! Still, in any event, facts ARE facts - I just put them up as a "compare & contrast" scenario that shows Windows in an environs like a Stock Exchange that is HIGH "Transactions-Per-Minute" in nature IS 'doable' is all, & that SOME folks (NASDAQ) have done it right & well... others, per this article/thread here @ /., have not (The London Stock Exchange))
APK
P.S.=> Man, I can see it now - Here comes the "Pro-*NIX" assassination squads to attempt to shoot down facts (and myself ala 'ad-hominem' attacks upon myself no doubt, as this IS the "typical trend" in these cases) that show Windows can & HAS done the job well, & in exactly these types of environs, in Stock Exchanges...
Seriously though? You ought to have read my "p.s." in my last post!
What I stated there?? Yes, I truly believe THAT has the MOST to do with stability & uptime (as well as speed) - and, myself having designed or co-designed + coded/co-coded on teams around 25++ "Enterprise Class/Mission Critical" client-server DB systems in my time, and ones that have run 10++ yrs. stable & secure/bulletproof + bugfree (needing little alteration @ the core, mainly only reporting added on or changed up some over time) & of this type of nature in fact???
Well, heck - I'd have to say I know EXACTLY what I am talking about on these accounts (from BOTH the software engineering side, having built such systems, spanning millions of lines each, usually in VB/Delphi/C++ to SQLServer, DB/2, or Oracle versions, AND the network engineering portion as well), hands on professionally for 16++ yrs. now... apk
A finanical institution that gets it wrong? Who'd have thought it, in this current climate....
You can't get regular microseconds response time using .NET. I work at another big Stock Exchange (one of the big fives) and they did here the same mistake LSE did. Most of the core systems are C#.
The .NETers will say "hey, look this micro-benchmark, C# is faster than C". But financial area software needs to be non-stop. Several times per day the garbage collector will STOP ALL YOUR THREADS to do it's job. Nowadays, you have lots of firms, funds and banks using algorithmic trade. A lot of programs trading against each other, and they will not be as efficient they could be with that intermittent [10-400]ms delay. It means less money.
The math is easy: More programs, more trades, more money to the Exchange. More trades, more data coming and going, more the GC will stop your business to reclaim unused memory.
Upper management are usually extremely non technical, which brings up a lot of problems...
As you pointed out, they are no good at identifying if someone else is technically competent...
Aside from that, they are more likely to trust marketing literature and advice from people they play golf with (who are likely to have vested interests)...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Welcome our smug, bearded, Unix liking overloads.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"They're abandoning TradElect and the platform it happened to be on. The OS is really a background to all of this. The primary cause of the switch has more to do with TradElect sucking than anything else
.NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system .. with support from Microsoft and Accenture, shows the London Stock Exchange's leadership in developing next-generation trading systems"
What exactly were the problems with TradElect and not caused by the underlying platform. According to this an 'external test environment' was in place, at least since Jan 2009.
"Availability of the external test environment (Customer Development Service or CDS) for TradElect and Infolect: early January 2009"
"Using the Microsoft®
davecb5620@gmail.com
I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I fail to see any specific examples of where the Windows based TradeElect software failed. I've seen better journalism in a high school yearbook class.
"Accenture .. outsourcing .. India .. No regression testing .. programmers do not fully understand the business processes, there are often major flaws in their software which force complete recompilation of the software"
Do you have any verifiable third party citations for the above statements?
davecb5620@gmail.com
Now a question, or rather two questions. I'm curious (and we use SQL Server 2005) .NET code or something else like C++?
What is the application layer for the NASDAQ system? I don't see that referenced in any of the articles? Is it
Am I right in thinking that one simple factor in the performance difference would be that the LSEX system ran on SQL Server 2000 rather than 2005?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
on one Microsoft way, it's never Microsofts fault... it's always a third party, that's just the way Microsoft operates (one Microsoft way).
"NYSE and OMX both run Linux based systems. I trade on OMX Stockholm and there is a lot of hickups. I've heard a lot of bad things about NYSE too", anonymous coward
"I contracted with the Chicago-based branch of the NYSE a couple years back and I can confirm the bad Linux setups", IANAAC
Do either of you, have any verifiable third party sources for these statements? When was the last time the Stockholm or NYSE stopped trading because of a Linux "outage?
davecb5620@gmail.com
"around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products. "
Yes I believe Solaris will do nicely.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
"It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture .. TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster", Jerky McNaughty
.. was first developed with Microsoft and Accenture "
"A prototype
"There was quite a high degree of risk involved on both sides. But Accenture, Microsoft and Avanade were very keen to make sure this would work. They pulled out all the stops"
davecb5620@gmail.com
In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange
davecb5620@gmail.com
Strong words, such as 'fool', are what a lot of people on Slashdot would call Microsoft bashing, EXCEPT this time, such words are eminently justified by the gravity of the situation. This time, you could pass a lot of the blame to other people and other software, and even then, Microsoft's share would be sufficient to justify words such as fool. In fact, it's hard to see how Microsoft's role in the English Stockmarket glitch could even conceivably be small enough that they don't deserve everything that's being said here. If you go solely by MS's own press releases and advertising claims, and how much they charged the exchange for their software, that's enough.
However, in the summary, shouldn't the excerpt be in double quotes? Single quotes make it look like a paraphrase, and it is intended to be an actual quote from the source. Right or wrong, these strong words are from the original article, not the Slashdot submitter.
Who is John Cabal?
I didn't know about the LSE adopting windows. But we can see here the problems that came of it. I remember a story about the UK navy using Windows to power their battleships and all the flak that I and everyone thought would happen when push comes to shove. Anyone know how that turned out?
It reformats the email to 80 columns.
I was involved in discussions (and more) with the LSE before (during but not so much) and after they decided to select Microsoft / Accenture / India / Outsourcing as the path for their solution and I know some of the key decision makers. Under the Microsoft umbrella, they were significantly influenced by the resources Microsoft was willing to commit to making the project work despite the newness of .NET as an ifrastructure.
It is important to remember where the LSE was before the TradeElect project, they had completely outsourced their platform to Accenture, the amount they spent per annum on keeping that platform up and running were phenomenal, an order of magnitude more than some of our clients were spending and they (our clients) were running much higher performance systems. TradeElect was designed to decrease these costs without compromising the "I don't lose sleep at night worryin about the systems" position of senior managers. I firmly believed it was a mistake to believe that .NET at the heart of the platform would meet the requirements of an exchange trading platform.
I have no real issue with Windows as the OS under the platform, really for a trading system the OS is providing a TCP stack and some IPC and thats about it. Everything else and the vast majority of the bottlenecks are in your application stack, whether it be tools or application code you are writing for your specific problem domain. Although one might argue that the Microsoft IPC tools can be argued as "weak/complicated".
It will be interesting to see which people the LSE use to provide the analysis of which way to jump with this decision. Too many very senior folk were involved all the way through the TradeElect project for heads to roll, but it will be interesting to watch who says what when the final decision of what to do is announced.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
The fact is the article has nothing to do with dumping Windows for Linux, but one trading platform for another. Neither OS is a real-time OS (without RT extensions or patches or -rt), both can be used in soft real-time applications as is. This is just another good story for the daily WTF, with TRWTF being the headline of the slashdot story.
is that they're reviewing everything at the LSE at the moment, not just software, but headcount etc. Key word is reviewing, which means that the pendulum could swing the other way and they'd use even more MS products since this is all a cost saving exercise. The article has it wrong.
And Microsoft was involved in the intial project, from a consultancy perspective as well.
Most people have never tried implementing an application that handles such a heavy load in any system. I worked for an ISP that implemented a system, not as big, but in the hundreds of thousands of transactions a day. We started with Windows servers and switched to Linux -- not because of faults in Windows, but because of cost. I always chuckled when I saw those TCO ads by Microsoft. If you are a computer professional who has been trained in both systems, setup and install time usually goes to Linux. Now I know many windows guys are saying that it only takes seconds to restore their systems. I don't know any professional Windows shop that doesn't rely upon some type of system ghosting, because windows takes so long to install from scratch. Sure ghosting has an edge, but from CD our Linux server install took 15 minutes. I've seen shops stick to a platform after the hardware is out of date, because they are so scared of the time to re-setup their systems. Why doesn't Windows XP get upgraded. Microsoft serves its target market well, which is companies from 5 to 500 employees. Their products are overly complex for home users and the licensing fees so large for large companies that companies like Sun have found it cheaper to write their own office applications and to give them away for free.
You know that little comic is kinda cute and all but when I read a response, like yours, to someone using the moniker 'M$' for Microsoft I instantly think wow here is a 'M$ fanboi'. Beside the parent said 'MS' and you *still* got offended.
First of all I don't want to type Microsoft all the time and MS is accepted shorthand for Multiple Sclerosis, ms is for millisecond, Ms is for referring to women. So why don't you tell me what is an accepted short term for Microsoft and convince everyone to use it in a politically correct way that will not offend you?
Then tell me why should I have to type a string of extra character throughout a post as to not invoke your sense of outrage to invoking what, for years now, has been an accepted shorthand for Microsoft. I got three words:
Get over it.
Here is some news for you, Microsoft don't care. Everyone knows the fastest way to really rub a Microsoft fanboi up the wrong way is to refer to Microsoft as M$, especially long time, old skool smug bearded Unix guys like myself. If it bothers you that people say M$ it's because it reminds us all what M$ is all about. If you are offended then it's probably designed to offend you, because no-one else cares. Frankly I think the moniker is a work of genius, whoever referred to Microsoft as M$ first should be given a percentage of all the insightful mod points ever used in any discussion about M$, except it probably predates the web, $lashdot and O$$.
M$ M$ M$ M$
See M$ stockprices are the same, Bill and Melinda are doing whatever they are doing, Ballmer didn't even care. No one cares.
Only you care, you're the only one offended.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You're missing the point.
Microsoft ought to have known that their OS was incapable of doing the real-time work necessary for this type of system. But they formed a contract and advertised that fact.
Yes, you can create a lousy Linux-based system. You can also make a good Linux-based system. You cannot, based on what they used for this, make a good Windows-based system.
MS used to run lots of ads, including banner ads on slashdot, about how the london stock exchange chose windows over linux... Those ads stopped very quickly when they had the big outage a few months ago.
Several European banks had their asses handed back to them, too, last spring for trying to shove their Windows-uberalles ideology into their core activities. For several months it was (maybe still is) practically impossible to do basic banking. People could go into others accounts, money from their own accounts could not be transfered, money could not be paid into their accounts. It was a hardship for many small businesses that were stupid enough to put their business accounts at a bank where ideology trumps technology. When your own customers can't pay you, money becomes a problem. There, too, the problem lay squarely on the attempt to use MS .NET instead of something workable. It's just a half-assed copy of Java locked into one vendor. After the banks getting bad press for weeks, there was a vague statement made about the company that takes care of the network, but not tying that statement to the ongoing outages.
It's not important to laugh at MS for making crap products, it's important to not use them. The problem with MS products has been around as long as the company itself so it's not like so-called technical 'experts' can claim ignorance or any other excuse. Adding the phrase "with a computer" doesn't absolve criminal negligence for recommending MS products.
Technology might be a matter of choice, but as the late US Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, has said, the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. So, that choice does not include the right to screw things up beyond belief for everyone else. It's not a nameless or faceless "terrorist" group that is costing our businesses, shutting down our infrastructure, tangling our air traffic control, our power grid, our hospitals, or stock exchanges and banks. The people promoting Windows and Microsoft technologies have real names and faces and walk among us every day. Take them out and we've won the first round. Why is the military sitting on its hands here? The damage is easy to add up and it's even easier to remove the cause. A side benefit from the cleanup would be a restoration of the freemarket and the usual subsequent boom of economic activity.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I think we can see which philosophy would have saved hundreds of lives in that case.
I see this regularly on /. but do remember that over Switzerland planes collided mid air because one of the pilots was allowed to override the anti collision system. If the two anti collisions systems would have mad it up between themselves hundreds would be still alive.
So both options have killed already and scores are currently even. It is just sad that people have just a short / selective memory. Well it is quite obviously that the /. crowd want to protect Boing.
Martin
Vaughn does some sleight of hand with the term "Mission Critical". I would say from personal experience in a large high energy physics experiment that Windows NT/XP is not the best platform for a high performance/high availability application. The LSE experience may have been similar, and perhaps aggravated by incompetent consultant, but to conclude from this that .Net is not a good platform for "Mission Critical" applications is just false. I work on several "Mission Critical" .Net applications at a medium bank where 10 ms response times would be way overkill...
That being said, if you really want to make your platform bulletproof, code it in C/C++.
I'm sure the LSE has no idea who's actually to blame, and is just dumping Windows/.NET because it's so easy to migrate off of.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
google for "London Stock Exchange site:microsoft.com" and fiddle around a bit looking at current vs. cached pages.
I bet if you interviewed Ballmer, he'd say something like "London has a Stock Exchane?!? I sure as fsck never heard of it"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Only SJVN is older, has less hair on his scalp and more on his face, and I assume his Asheville, North Carolina residence is not his parents' basement.
That could be a Star Trek's Starfleet uniform he is wearing though.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Was that recent Seattle train crash also connected to MS ?
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Microsoft killed his parents, his dog, two goldfishes and his pet cucumber (to whom he refers as Reginald).
He has been fuming about anything remotely connected to Microsoft ever since.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Priceless.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
that the articles can't be buried and that to make any headway, the shills and other turfers have to make some form of argument in order to be modded up...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
TFA is yet another unsuspecting windows bashing piece posted on slashdot, you guys just can't get enough.
No, it's Microsoft vs GNU/Linux.
See my subject-line, & check the dates of your sources (they appear to be "old & stale" (from 2005), compared to mine (from 2006 & 2007))... & as far as "clever marketing"? It appears, that based on what I found in your article sources being older than mine, & therefore quite possibly "out-of-date"? Well - I wonder: WHO IS ATTEMPTING "clever marketing" here?
"claiming NASDAQ trades on Windows is certainly not correct. The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
I only "claimed" what was put out, via quotes of my source articles - So, you can read what was quoted from my sources, all/each reputable, & again their dates as well - My sources' material?
NEWER & MORE CURRENT THAN YOUR SOURCE!
APK
P.S.=> As I predicted in my 1st post? "Here comes the 'Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows" trolls, complete with "clever marketing" & inaccurate stale information being brought to the table to misguide + misinform others with... not a good showing! Better luck next time... same to the poster before you also, by the by! apk
The problem was that none of the partners knew anything about software development so they didn't know if the CTO they hired was any good. They went by stupid things like names of the school he was from and names of his previous employers. His previous employers probably did the same. Software development in finance is a giant circle jerk.
Sort of OT, but doesn't the above describe the way people in finance generally get jobs in the first place? It seems the finance industry is more clique than quant, which would explain why so many funds blow up and why mutual fund returns generally suck. It doesn't surprise me at all that fund managers would hire a dolt CTO with a degree from Harvard instead of a great one with a degree from Georgia Tech, for example.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
"Clever marketing, but irrelevant" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)
Actually, my sources being newer than those put out in reply to you from others IS quite relevant, for 1 thing (so look @ the data others are putting out below your reply here in addition to mine now)...
AND, so is the quoted material from my sources showing 99.999% uptime & stability... care to dispute THAT much?
(IF so, argue with my sources, ok?? GOOD LUCK - they're only showing that Windows CAN maintain stable uptime in a high tpm environs!)
I only "claimed" what was put out, via quotes of my source articles, so... well, again - argue with what I quoted from my sources!
That all "said & aside"? You're not disproving that I can & have shown reputable sources for Windows doing well @ a stock exchange, which is a high tpm environs (& the data shows the tpm rate maintainable as well in diff. cases no less also!)
APK
P.S.=> As I predicted in my 1st post? "Here comes the 'Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows brigade", complete with "clever marketing" & inaccurate stale information being brought to the table to misguide + misinform others with (this is not in regard to whom I am replying to now, but the other poster replying to the gent I am replying to now also)
Nope, not even a "nice try" & certainly not a good showing! Better luck next time... same to the poster who also replied to you, by the by! apk
Andersen Consulting split from Arthur Andersen (mainly accounting/auditing) years ago. The reason for the rename from Andersen Consulting to Accenture was to completely remove the ambiguity about relations between the two companies. (Incidentally the remaining Arthur Andersen also started up a consulting group!) The people involved with Enron were Arthur Andersen (accounting/auditing) and they did go bust afterwards because no one would do business with them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accenture
In the end though, the parent poster, Freedom_India, actually expended a LOT of his own mod points
No he didn't. If you post in a discussion you are unable to moderate any posts in that discussion. Any previous moderations of posts in that discussion are also undone.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that one user has been down modding all of your posts. For one thing, you have to be a "good" user to get mod points and even then you don't get that many of them and you don't get them very frequently and you are never allowed to apply more than one moderation per post.
1st time ANYONE here has been that nice/kind (whatever you would like to call it I suppose) to me here in fact.
Its not about kindness, it is about individuals assigning a score to what you wrote based on their opinion of it. Some people may be haters and blow their wad down-modding as many posts from another user as they can and it is possible that the reverse happens and you have a lover out there, but chances are you've been modded up and down by a handful of different people who have differing opinions of each of the posts in question.
"If more people actually checked facts before choosing Windows..." - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @01:30PM (#28573297)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28573791 -> See my subject-line above, & the dates of your source articles, vs. mine, & I addressed THAT much, in that url I just put up in fact... first of all!
(Face it - you can argue with whom I quoted, not myself, but no matter what? My sources are reputable, & are newer material than yours by 1-2++ yrs. AND do indeed show 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs using Windows, period...
Despite your stating this, in your init. reply here:
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
Who's the one using "clever marketing"?
I mean, FIRST OF ALL, by YOU posting OLD possibly out of date & stale material (yours from 2005) & mine being newer from 2006 & 2007?
Are my sources, which are reputable no less, LYING about Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 using failover clustering showing 99.999% uptime in a STOCK EXCHANGE, which IS a "high tpm" environs???
No, I don't think so...
NOW - IF YOU THINK SO? Again - argue with my sources, but make sure yours are @ least current or more current than mine are (& mine are, no questions asked) & NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO "SLICE & DICE IT"?? My sources are reputable, & show that Window CAN & DOES do 99.999% uptime... look before you leap next time.
APK
P.S.=> Regardless of whatever kind of "spin" you "Pro-*NIX/Anti-MS/Anti-Windows" folks here use, the fact remains, you are wrong & Windows systems CAN & DO do 99.999% stable uptime (& my sources show the transactions rates in diff. scenarios there no less as well) & what they are doing... I never stated anything different than my sources did, so, argue with them... good luck & better luck next time... apk
These articles refer to MDDS, which is the platform used to distribute trade data, not to execute trades itself.
LSE is not even big comparing to US equity markets. I would even say small. Their data flow is about one tenth of that of Nasdaq. The number of traded issues is a tiny fraction of number of US issues too.
And yet they have absolutely horrible latencies of order entry interfaces comparing to what's 'normal' for US electronic trading venues.
Their TradElect platform even lacks proper timestamps on Level2 market data messages. On top of that wire format description is afair ~700 pages long. Compare it to Nasdaq spec - 12 (used to be 4) pages for market data interface, about 20 for order entry.
It's clear that LSE is one tangled mess - and the reason for it was a monopoly on trading British names and other listed securities. Now with MiFid EU directive in place they do not longer have that cushion.
So do not blame Windows - blame inept management and their boneheaded decisions.
Go back to highschool for English classes, please. Where are you? Were you doing something stupid?
Nothing like being "stalked" by an online "internet psycho"... Quit already, "Americano"... while you're behind!
"Furthermore, it is unlikely that one user has been down modding all of your posts. For one thing, you have to be a "good" user to get mod points and even then you don't get that many of them and you don't get them very frequently and you are never allowed to apply more than one moderation per post." - by Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 03, @02:51PM (#28574007)
The ones that were modded down only had 1 mod per post by one person, initially... later, someone changed them, thank goodness (because I was FAR from offtopic).
In the end though, here is what mattered:
ALL of my posts, in the URL I noted, WERE "remodded" from -1 offtopic & such, to +1 insightful...
So, so much for that & because of that? Well - basically, imo @ least??
What you state is now irrelevant & non-sequitur.
APK
P.S.=> Americano: I am pretty certain this is you again, so... realize 1 thing:
You only did yourself in, & that's that!
Anyone is free to read that entire exchange & the linked to URL's showing that much, where:
TomHudson, another member here called YOU a troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&cid=28486897 & rightfully so, for putting words in his mouth he never said!
Then you saying "MacOS X is more secure", but it has a hole in it you could NOT fix totally (neither has Apple, lol, in scripting problems), + you stated I could not play videos on my Windows rig?
Funny - I do, & even without the recommended fix by MS, & safely, via running .avi file (I can play ALL other formats, safely, so you are wrong on that note anyways) thru a good freeware program to test their legitimacy & that's all here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28565623 and here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1283193&cid=28566153 , so, so much for that! apk
You're obviously upset, the bold typeface and upper case letters indicate that.
The sad truth is that the systems you describe aren't the trading system. Nobody is saying that there isn't a Windows system running somewhere that works.
People don't like Microsoft for other reasons. Their nefarious business practices; the limitations imposed by their EULA. The way the rambling one track minds of their devotees show their obedience and their readiness to stand in line and march in step.
So, now we know that there is a Windows system somewhere that is doing well. Good show.
Given the existence of a reasonable alternative I still wouldn't touch one of their products with a barge pole.
"These articles refer to MDDS, which is the platform used to distribute trade data, not to execute trades itself." - by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793)
on Friday July 03, @02:59PM (#28574077)
Question #1: Did I state any differently? DO MY SOURCE ARTICLE STATE DIFFERENTLY?? IF SO, show us WHERE on each account noted, thanks??
AND
Question #2: - DO my sources show that Windows can & DOES do 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs (complete w/ transactions rates figures & when/where etc. et al)??
(They certainly DO & Face it: All I did was cite completely reputable sources showing Windows pulling 5,000 tpm - 10,000 tpm rates @ NASDAQ, a stock exchange (a very high tpm 24x7 environs), period... care to show us differently?)
Anyhow/anyways - SO much for your statements & attempts @ discrediting what is clearly shown - Windows CAN & DOES do a great 99.999% uptime job, in a high tpm environs, period...
APK
P.S.=> As I told others here? Argue with my sources, & the quotes I used from them... that's all - I know, I know: It "chaps your A$$" that someone can put out information that shows Windows is reliable, but, that is how it is (don't like it? Don't argue with me - confront the source articles I used & their authors)... good luck! apk
Like I said, it is clever marketing. Even after I pointed the fail to you, you still missed it. :)
You think MDDS is their trading system? It is not
Supermontage is what is executing NASDAQ trades (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/supermontage.asp)
The citations I posted were older because that was when Supermontage was rolled out.
Your FUD rolls off me like water on lotus leaves
Here is what actually does the work you claim MDDS does (http://www.tibco.com/resources/customers/successstory_nasdaq.pdf )
I shout bull shit to the above case.
There are a lot of very good developers in the financial industry. How many people can write software that makes a trade decision in microseconds? Not many. How many can do it with such few bugs in such short amounts of time?
There are scenarios where the above happens, but remember that releasing code an hour or a day before your competitor == more bucks. Some shortcuts are taken. Silly things like hard coding database names is unbelievable, but it happens. It should have been caught. Not everywhere is that bad.
If the replacement system uses C# and Mono there is still hope for Microsoft!
"You're obviously upset, the bold typeface and upper case letters indicate that." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @03:12PM (#28574169)
At having a +5 Informative modded post? LOL, no, I don't think so... not @ all! Quite happy about the rating actually, quite cool, I'll add it to my collection!
Seriously though - YOU aren't ME... & I use caps +/or bold to EMPHASIZE POINTS, not as shows of emotion (I don't use emotion in computer debates, just facts or quotes of them).
I'd consider getting a PHD in psychiatry or psychology + a license to practice & formal examinations performed before you go & "sidewalk aurgeon" quack analyze others, lol, because in MY case? You're way, Way, WAY off... no joke!
"The sad truth is that the systems you describe aren't the trading system" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @03:12PM (#28574169)
You know, care to show us where I said it was anything but what I said it was, showing 99.999% "HAPPY TRUTH" uptime in a stable fashion @ 5k tpm - 10k tpm rates?
(I hate having words put into my mouth or having anyone insinuate I said something I didn't - I merely quoted a scenario showing Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 kicking butt is all - &, it does!)
APK
In the 25+ years I've been in the Software industry, I've heard this over and over again.
Meaning that buying M$ products was always a safe bet in terms of job security. Apparently that is no longer true. This is the real story here.
I worked at LSE a whilte back. 50% permies, 25% accenture, 25% contractors (via accenture). Many inexperienced people from accenture, many grey beards who had been with LSE for 10 or 20 years. Crippling work hours, fantastic pay. Without a doubt, the best way to describe the people who worked there was 'dull'.
"Nothing that you have posted proves that the NASDAQ isn't doing nightly failovers" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @02:32PM (#28573889)
Got any proof on your end they do? Now, you've got ME curious - if you have it, put it up, don't insinuate possible scenarios (hey, tomorrow you may have an IQ over "10 below plantlife" and go "pick the carrots from the trees...", & doing ALL that, plus a handstand too - wouldn't that be a hell of a show, lmao... who knows? LOL!)
BOTTOM-LINE: Uhm, Who cares WHAT they have to do (IF they have to do anything @ ALL, doesn't sound it, prove they do I suppose - you have me curious, now prove your insinuation with concrete verifiable data, thanks!)
LOL, as to your question of whatever it is they're doing - It doesn't sound they are, but, have your fantasies... lol?
LMAO, for Pete's sake... Hey, as long as they maintain that 99.999% uptime as they have stably & 5k tpm - 10k tpm F A S T for 1/2 a decade on a 24x7 Stock Exchange system? Microsoft Windows Server 2003 & SQL Server 2005 are doing the job, the only job they have to do - which is, of course -> KEEP doing the job!
NASDAQ using Microsoft stuff has... plain & simple.
APK
P.S.=> LOL, you guys will do ANYTHING to try to put Windows down it seems, but... fact is, it's doing 99.999% uptime in a noted FAST industrial environs for 1/2 a decade solid now... I don't care what they're doing, they are doing it and it keeps doing 24x7 (good enough for anyone) - it may get all the "Pro-*NIX Crew" here all stirred up once you show concrete evidence thereof, as I have, but - someone has to 'stir up the sauce'...
AND, my favorite ingredient?
INDISPUTABLE TRUTH & BACKING PROOFS from reliable sources!
Yes - makes for a hell of a recipe, judging by the +5 INFORMATIVE rating & the "flock of penguins" (lol) waddling after me chanting "We HaTe WiNdOwS", lol... apk
I guess they didn't have any compentent network admins, you know, the ones that would have added a CNAME to the dns systems and had the "problem" fixed in 10 seconds???????
Question #1: Did I state any differently? DO MY SOURCE ARTICLE STATE DIFFERENTLY?? IF SO, show us WHERE on each account noted, thanks??
Do you state it? No. Do you imply it? Very much so. Which brings us to the next point...
AND
Question #2: - DO my sources show that Windows can & DOES do 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs (complete w/ transactions rates figures & when/where etc. et al)??
No. They don't. Please feel free to show where they state that. Read carefully. You've given us a string of links that sure IMPLY that though. And that isn't the same thing.
"You honestly think NASDAQs quote matching system's back-end is a SQL server???" - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @03:58PM (#28574515)
I said NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data verbatim, the rest was backing article material from reputable sources, "Read ALL ABOUT IT", here, lol:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
Either you didn't read my +5 INFORMATIVE rated post, & just skimmed & are trolling by trying to say I said things I never did! It has to be THAT, or you have reading problems or are a skimming troll...
See, I say that because I don't mention the system you do, only the one I note now, but doing that 99.999% uptime SOLID 24x7 "fabled '5-9's' of uptime for 1/2 a decade now or more & that's good enough I guess to show Microsoft Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 doing that job, which is, keep doing the job for them, 24x7...
READ IT AGAIN, FULLY, BEFORE TROLLING... please - it'll even help YOU become a better troll, if you read it all, & don't get it... lmao!
Are you trolling? Seems it - You're trying "the oldest trick in the book": PUTTING WORDS IN OTHERS' MOUTHS... jedi mind tricks don't work on me, novice... lmao!
APK
P.S.=> THIS takes the cake:
"Your sources are Microsoft, MSN, and a website/magazine about windows funded by Microsoft. The Iranian national news service couldn't be more biased than that." - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @03:58PM (#28574515)
Didn't you miss one?
Yes - I think so -> http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare
----
"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."
----
So? Are ANY of my source articles lying or something??
DOES MICROSOFT OWN THAT NASDAQTRADER COMPANY - if so, prove that to me please... thanks! Not that it'd matter - what I'd be concerned about it lies that you can prove are lies is all in any of the source material I used.
(Hey - That'd be all that WOULD matter, as they'd have been misinforming us all, including myself... but, that's a heavy thing to insinuate!)
Are you??
PLUS - Are my sources, which are reputable no less, LYING about Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 using failover clustering showing 99.999% uptime in a STOCK EXCHANGE, which IS a "high tpm" environs???
No, I don't think so... Hey Prove they are lying then - quit "speculating" (lol, you've shown us all you're not too good @ it already, lol), prove it... ok?
NOW - IF YOU THINK SO? Again - argue with my sources, but make sure yours are @ least current or more current than mine are (& mine are, no questions asked) & NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO "SLICE & DICE IT"?? My sources are reputable, & show that Window CAN & DOES do 99.999% uptime... for NASDAQ no less, a high tpm environs, w/ Windows cranking out 5k-10k tpm rates SOLID 99.999% uptime.
Look before you leap next time, posting possibly stale data & certainly less current than what I had, surely didn't help your case either... apk
The reason this is significant is that Microsoft were heavily involved in the development of this system and are still saying how wonderful it is that the LSE runs on their amazing software. The fact of the matter is that it's been a total disaster both for the LSE and for Microsoft's PR machine. Whether it's a political powerplay as well remains to be seen, but the simple fact is that the software sucked and not even Microsoft could make it work.
Your quote from NASDAQ.com talks about NASDAQ trading services uptime, not about MDDS uptime. MDDS != NASDAQ trading service no matter how much you wish it to be. Let me quote from the NASDAQ article:
"Avergage daily matched volume in all U.S. securities was 2.2 billion shares, a 13% increase over May 2008."
The 4 node installation of MDDS can process 100,000 transactions per day, so where are the other two billion one hundred and ninety nine million nine hundred thousand transactions coming from?
Now that your pathetic attempt to conflate NASDAQ trading system uptime with MDDS uptime has been dispelled, that leaves you with 3 microsoft articles saying how great windows is. Congratulations, you have passed your M$ marketing shill certification program.
NASDAQ does not mention MDDS anywhere on their website that I could find. Please find a page served by nasdaq.com that mentions they even sell MDDS to anyone, I could find no mention of anyone who buys or receives the MDDS service anywhere.
"Do you state it? No" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @04:14PM (#28574671)
"VERY GOOD" (I knew you could do it) - in my best "Mr Rogers voice", lol...
"Do you imply it? Very much so." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @04:14PM (#28574671)
You said I implied something other than this -> NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data my 1st post -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
That's all & that is what I said... You say I implied something other than that?
Prove it... or take your meds or something (troll, trying to put words in my mouth I never said & saying I am implying something other than my own words above is a lame tactic, won't work, quit wasting your time already)
----
You asked this in regards to my saying DO my sources show that Windows can & DOES do 99.999% uptime in a high tpm environs (complete w/ transactions rates figures & when/where etc. et al)??:
"No. They don't. Please feel free to show where they state that. Read carefully. You've given us a string of links that sure IMPLY that though. And that isn't the same thing." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @04:14PM (#28574671)
I am not implying anything, I said what I said above in bold, & that's that - you had best prove your accusations of me implying anything.
From the article... 99.999% uptime @ 5k - 10k tpm rates on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, acting as the official trade data dissemination system.
Check this out for tpm rates, a couple of them say the exact same pretty much:
----
"NASDAQ has replaced aging Tandem mainframes used to disseminate market data with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 running on the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition operating system. The system runs on two 4-node Dell PowerEdge 6850 clusters.
The system supports NASDAQs Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through MDDS, and MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades. To support MDDS, SQL Server 2005 handles approximately 5,000 transactions per second at market open.
The system also simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day using the SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation feature a feature that allows real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ identified Snapshot Isolation as a key benefit early on.
We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us, said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
Snapshot Isolation works by allowing multiple users to view data concurrently without locking other users out of it. It uses a temporary database that holds updated data for each transaction.
Meanwhile, Richmond also noted that the system is cutting costs in comparison to the Tandem Enscribe system that it replaced.
Ten years ago NASDAQ earned about one penny per trade. Today we make about one-tenth of a penny per trade. SQL Server 2005 is helping us meet our goals of offering our customers more while charging them less, he said. Richmond called reducing costs one of the primary drivers for the project.
The SQL Server 2005 development tools have also cut developers time in creating and customizing new solutions, he said, in part through simplified testing and debugging. A recent project that would have been exceedingly difficult with the old system took just three or four days.
Mission critical impl
See my subject line, that is what I stated Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 run - that's all, & here it is, again, verbatim:
NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
That's from my 1st post -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
NASDAQTRADER said NASDAQ has 99.999% uptime, & if it did not they could not say it. They run MS products, & if MS stuff wasn't holding that stable, then, NASDAQTRADER couldn't say the "99.999% uptime" part of that quote now without it being a lie - & since you object to some of my sources, well, I don't think NASDAQTRADER.COM is owned by MS are they?
The Combination of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 are the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM - I only said that, so please - Get THAT thru your head!
(Stop trolling... I see you probably modded down my post from +5 INFORMATIVE it was at, to +4 now... or one of your sock puppet accounts did, lol, no biggie. If that's the best you have, along with attempting to put words in others' mouths they never said, then, you are obviously just another troll).
APK
P.S.=> Don't try to put words in my mouth I never said, it's an old troll trick, won't work on me... sorry to disappoint you on that note! apks
If you ask me I blame the fact they were using HP servers. Wheres a photoshopped picture of a guy with his head up his own arse when you need one? HP has got to be the worst experience I have ever had with anything that wasnt a printer (and even then their printer driver update system is laughably buggy). Go ahead and blame windows all you want. But dont forget to ALSO blame crappy HP hardware. They cant make anything resembling good regular desktops or laptops why would you trust their servers?
And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious!
1.) NASDAQTRADER said NASDAQ has 99.999% uptime.
2.) NASDAQ uses Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 for its OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM.
3.) NASDAQTRADER could not state the 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ if Microsoft products could not maintain it as well, because it is one of their major systems... period!
I only stated that, from an article no less that shows it here -> http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare [nasdaqtrader.com]
"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."
That Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 in combination, power the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM, that's all... do you have problems reading? Honestly, if you do, I will understand... AND?
THAT that combination runs @ a 5k - 10k tpm rate 24x7 per this article ->
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]
"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries
As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."
and
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/
Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open.
The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down
APK
P.S.=> NASDAQTRADER is not owned by Microsoft, are they? apk
mission-critical and Accenture can't go in the same sentece.
What have you been smoking? Old Tennis Shoes, or what??
"It's not even 4 years" - by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Friday July 03, @04:42PM (#28574913) Homepage
2005 (part of it) = .5 yrs. = 6 months (to be fair, I'll use the midpoint)
2006 = 1 = 12 months
2007 = 1 = 12 months
2008 = 1 = 12 months
2009 = 7 months
Excuse me? That's 4 yrs.++ since that is 49 months (12/49 = 4 & then some)...
(LOL!)
APK
P.S.=> I am certain Windows Server 2003 Systems + SQLServer 2005 can go with uptime for the remainder (& beyond) to 5++ yrs rates... I've run them for years myself, albeit not constantly processing transactions here @ home that long @ least though... AND "THE ATTACK OF THE FURIOUS 'Pro-*NIX/Anti-Microsoft/Anti-Windows Brigade", continues... lmao! apk
"You think MDDS is their trading system?" - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @03:19PM (#28574225)
Did I say it was anything other than the OFFICIAL DISSEMINATION SYSTEM OF OFFICIAL TRADE DATA? No. You can't read, because I stated this, verbatim -> Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
That's from my 1st post -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
(Please, either quit trolling, OR get that thru your head, or take remedial reading courses (or your dyslexia treatments) or something, lmao... ok?)
APK
P.S.=> Quit trying the oldest troll trick in the book - putting words into my mouth I never stated... apk
There is a reason for people, especially programmers, to bash Microsoft.
.Net timers are so much a joke that I always invoke the Windows timer instead. The problem with the .Net timer is that it might never fire and there is no way you can guarantee that it fires. If I remember correctly, if the computer is too busy when the timer is supposed to fire the timer just gets dropped instead of firing as soon as it can after the time it was supposed to.
We write programs to run on Windows. Windows has various APIs that we are supposed to be able to use and just trust that they will work properly.
The problem is they don't just work. Winsock for the longest time, maybe still, had so many bugs in it that you had to do so much much error checking that on any other platform would have been ridiculous overkill.
Directsound API had a known bug that after loading a sound into memory you had to make sure to check that it was actually there just before playing it because sometimes Windows would just loose track of where that sound was, so you had to load it again, and don't forget to check it again before playing because Windows might have already lost it again.
The multimedia timer hasn't worked since the Windows 9x days. Then the
Then you have API hell. Microsoft is constantly coming out with new APIs to do the same thing as APIs that already exist. Trying to figure out which API is the newest and should be used is difficult. Sometimes the new API has been deprecated and they suggest using one of the older APIs. It's really hard to tell at times.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
See my subject-line above, & that's all I ever said - Man alive!
(Why are you people trying to put words into my mouth I never stated?)
Again - I wrote about the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (nothing else), & yes, it runs on Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 - what is it about that you guys cannot read, & understand??
APK
P.S.=> Curious here though - I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of official backing of your statement though, got any? An article or proof from NASDAQ too?? apk
...we need somebody to do a Super Size Me-esque documentary on how badly Microsoft has failed the world.
There was a SIGNATURE here, but it's gone now.
You said I implied something other than this -> NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
Exactly. That's what you're implying. That what your links imply. That is not, however, what those links state.
I am not implying anything, I said what I said above in bold, & that's that - you had best prove your accusations of me implying anything.
From the article... 99.999% uptime @ 5k - 10k tpm rates on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, acting as the official trade data dissemination system.
Great. Show me the article saying that Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 with failover clusters accounts for their 99.999% uptime figure. Show me the article saying that the official trade data dissemination system has a 99.999% up time. You have that 5 9's figure. But it doesn't say anything about what system(s) are being considered for the blurb.
"That's all great, but the MDDS is just a reporting system. It does not handle trades." -
All the TRADE data goes thru it, @ this rate, @ the NASDAQ reported (by NASDAQTRADER) 99.999% uptime & yes, I know that it is a part of NASDAQ's many systems but no single one runs the show there either
(I never said it was anything but the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMENATION SYSTEM, so again - QUIT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I NEVER STATED, for the 10th time now):
http://www.windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005
----
NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005
Sunday, January 1, 2006, 12:00
"NASDAQ has replaced aging Tandem mainframes used to disseminate market data with Microsoft SQL Server 2005 running on the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition operating system. The system runs on two 4-node Dell PowerEdge 6850 clusters.
The system supports NASDAQs Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through MDDS, and MDDS keeps the official daily record of all trades. To support MDDS, SQL Server 2005 handles approximately 5,000 transactions per second at market open.
The system also simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day using the SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation feature a feature that allows real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ identified Snapshot Isolation as a key benefit early on.
We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us, said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
Snapshot Isolation works by allowing multiple users to view data concurrently without locking other users out of it. It uses a temporary database that holds updated data for each transaction.
Meanwhile, Richmond also noted that the system is cutting costs in comparison to the Tandem Enscribe system that it replaced.
Ten years ago NASDAQ earned about one penny per trade. Today we make about one-tenth of a penny per trade. SQL Server 2005 is helping us meet our goals of offering our customers more while charging them less, he said. Richmond called reducing costs one of the primary drivers for the project.
The SQL Server 2005 development tools have also cut developers time in creating and customizing new solutions, he said, in part through simplified testing and debugging. A recent project that would have been exceedingly difficult with the old system took just three or four days.
Mission critical implementations like NASDAQs MDDS are giving Microsoft traction in the database race against IBM and Oracle. In 2004 (before SQL Server 2005s official launch), Microsoft led database vendors in terms of growth of market share, with 18 percent growth over 2003, according to Gartner"
----
APK
P.S.=> Why is this guy trying to say I said things other than what I said? This was my init. statement & he even admits I never said anything but rather "implied it" (could it be his reading comprehension? I can't think of anything else) -> Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data & it is PART of the 99.999% uptime WHOLE there, and it deals with ALL trade data no less... apk
NASDAQ is many systems not just 1 only - I know this, and not "1 SINISTER SINGLE SYSTEM" runs the entire show there - you have tried to make it sound as if I didn't know that, you've put words into my mouth I never said (some of which you now admit & realize below), and I stated Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 are THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (a major one, nothing else there does it).
99.999% uptime is what NASDAQTRADER reported as the uptime there in summation and now you finally realize what I said this system IS, is the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM! About time...
The OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM is Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 & it touches ALL THE TRADE DATA, without messing up or even DB's it 'taps into' either. It's a major system there, and where users can make actual USE of the data, not just blow thru SQLQueries & DB updates/inserts/selects/deletes etc. et al: It's one of the REAL "where the rubber meets the road" to the PEOPLE THAT RUN or USE NASDAQ... & even saves them money.
Thus, it's, more or less, an organ in the "body" of NASDAQ's computer systems, because nothing else is doing what it does & thus it's a major system, and is part of that 99.999% uptime reported @ NASDAQTRADER!
After all, no 1 single system is "NaSdAq" (like some sinister 'skynet' thing - it's a bunch of systems performing diff. often specialized tasks - but, I never said anything like it was this SINGLE GIANT BLOB CALLED "NaSdAq", lmao, either, did I? You sure tried to make it sound like I was though)...
LASTLY, since THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM is a major part of that 99.999% uptime operation called NASDAQ? The OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM gets that also since it is a major system (especially to users).
APK
P.S.=> You have to quit putting words into others' mouths they never stated... it's not working well for you! apk
"NASDAQ wouldn't trust their trading system to Windows." - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)
They surely trusted & did well for reporting though, check THIS out:
We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us, said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
"Yes, it goes through the Windows stack after it has been processed by the trading system. Which used to run on a POSIX system on MIPS Tandem hardware the year after your MDDS system was installed. I can't find anymore recent info even on the NASDAQ site." by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, @12:40PM (#28572825)
I wonder - does that do the job of being THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ? No, doubt it. It does, what IT does.
(AND? I never once said THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ was the process you state, did I? Nope... show me where I have! Good Luck on that one)
NASDAQ, so you know?
LMAO - Is not, lol, like "NaSdAq" (some evil Skynet robot AI single overlord system type stuff) - it's a lot of systems interacting & doing specialized jobs - THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ does the reporting - where the rubber meets the road, to end users (the most important of them all).
It's a major system of that 99.999% uptime operation called NASDAQ, as described by NASDAQTRADER in fact, & especially to users...
APK
P.S.=> No 1 single system in other words, runs the entire show there, & THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ is part of that, a major unique part (especially to users), thus it too is part of that 99.999% uptime reported of NASDAQ by NASDAQTRADER - because the system(s) you describe do not claim that all by themselves & do not do the job this one does, as a major part no less on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005... apk
So Amazon, Google, Yahoo, NYSE, and so on choose bsd, linux, or solaris, with good reason. While LSE managers apparently think that the OS that they run on their desktop for word processing is up to the task of running an exchange because, well... why not, they use it all day long!
"Wall Street Embraces Linux" : http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html
"NYSE Moves to Linux" (from UNIX): http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/14/2312210
Microsoft annoys me as much as the next guy, but blame where blame is due please...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I don’t know if Accenture sucks
That's Accenture, formerly known as Andersen Consulting, formerly a part of Arthur Andersen.
You may find it reassuring to know that Accenture has a division, Navitaire, that provides software for numerous airlines.
NASDAQ is not like "NaSdAq", lol, & each system is a major part... you know, like THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM, ever heard of it?
You know, the one that runs Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, & hits the ground @ 5k++ tpm speeds over @ NASDAQ... It goes thru all the trade data & all the trade data goes thru it and it gives customers &/or users abilities they wanted in reports & the like. That's all I've ever said.
You tried to say it was another subsystem I was stating. I asked you if I stated that, & you said no.
End of subject.
APK
P.S.=> Did the systems you thought (lol) I SAID were the ones you are talking about at NASDAQ perform the same duties in full that the NASDAQ OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does? If not, they require this one it seems... boy, "look everyone", here is what the folks @ NASDAQ say about it (by the by):
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us, said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
It even saved them money, & keeps doing the job with solid uptime - which I know, lmao, that you "Pro-*NIX" clowns around here can't stand that but... oh well, 99.999% @ NASDAQ what with it being composed of all those parts, that also includes THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM which runs on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 & nothing else @NASDAQ does that - this is a major part of that operation! apk
Does any other system @ NASDAQ perform the same duties as THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM?
(Why are you running from that?)
AND, @ THIS LEVEL (PERFECT, VERBATIM):
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
Saves them money too & replaced a mainframe. Perfectly... that means @ LEAST 99.999% uptime, to go along w/ NASDAQTRADER stating NASDAQ is a 99.999% uptime operation, as a whole, that is exactly what they are, each system is a part.
APK
P.S.=> Perfect is, after all, 100% perfect... heck, better than 99.999% uptime even! Argue with the numbers... Ah, anyhow/anyway:
You running from answering questions isn't looking good, plus what with you using STALE old data, lol, way less current than mine is, accusing me of things I never said, making it seem like THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ ran it all, none of them do, so that 99.999% rating by NASDAQTRADER is describing the operation as a whole, & each part needs the others after all & is the summation of that 24x7 high tpm environs known as NASDAQ...
"Your performance is DOWN lately, Mr. Troll!", lmao... apk
See my subject-line above & this quote "We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
perfect
Main Entry:
1perfect
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect
APK
P.S.=> I see NASDAQTRADER calling it less than pefect @ 99.999%, but I see the folks @NASDAQ who built & use it say it's perfect... 100% perfect. I guess THAT doesn't mean 99.999% uptime? NOT! apk
"You see - in real enterprise environments, we use quantifiable numbers as metrics." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)
I think the guy I quoted below, Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ, is in a "real enterprise environment" that probably dwarves whatever you're on in terms of transactions per minute @ the very least...
----
"It also highlights the fact that you're desperate to find something to replace the 5 9's quote that has failed to support your argument" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)
Last time I checked, per Merriam Webster's dictionary above? PERFECT = without flaw, flawless etc. et al (That's 100%, & that is greater than 99.999%)
----
"But please, don't let that shake you from your delusions" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @11:40PM (#28577479)
Don't let the guy I quote below, Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ, shake you from yours via his testimonial, that only supports what I wrote, as perfect IS PERFECT...
(Personally, I think you are just another "Pro-*NIX" penguin waddling after me now, lol, chanting to yourself "We HaTe WiNdOwS..." who can't handle the fact that Windows Server 2003 is doing a great job @ NASDAQ!)
APK
P.S.=> For your re-reference:
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect [merriam-webster.com]
perfect
Main Entry:
1perfect
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect
(Even to the point of saving money for NASDAQ no less...)
APK
P.S.=> I see NASDAQTRADER calling it less than pefect @ 99.999%, but I see the folks @NASDAQ who built & use it say it's perfect... 100% perfect. I guess THAT doesn't mean 99.999% uptime? NOT! apk
Even though I'm certainly not a fan of Microsoft, I have to say that it's probably possible to create a working solution using those tools.
However the big problem is that there are tools attracting bad programmers and admins. For example most Windows admins know very little about their system, because it seems you can live without it. Another example is PHP, it looks so simple people don't care about what they are doing. The result is insecure code. It's simmilar with C or C++, just ask around how many programmers believe integer overflows or buffer overflows are not a serious problem.
So Microsoft's fault is that they attract idiots and keep people dumb.
As soon as I read the article and found out Accenture was responsible, my immediate reaction was, 'Well of course the implementation was a disaster!' The 'consultants' at Accenture couldn't implement their way out of a clown costume.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
I don’t know if Accenture sucks...
I can confirm for you that Accenture suck really really hard. They are made of fail.
The Linux-based NYSE and OMX crash all the time.
Microsoft earned good money selling them a BSoD to display whenever their crappy communist OS OS crashed, because they didn't even fucking have one of their own!
Can you fucking believe that?
What kind of worthless fucking hippy scum can't even code up a BSoD screen, for fuck's sake?
I'll tell you who: GODDAM FUCKING CHINESE COMMUNIST HIPPY OPEN SOURCE BASTARDS, that's who!
Eat this fucking chair, you goddam faggots!!!!
[CRASH]
My name is not Steve Ballmer.
How will they see outside?
And my closing comment is "The OS is irrelevant here, except to fanboys of either side."
Judging from THIS, you clearly fall under that. What are you, nine years old?
>It's not Windows vs Linux.
>It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.
Bank is having problems with its IVRs (strange slowdown in the software). The first thing they do in troubleshooting is... You can guess, don't be shy... R-r-right: they turn off their anti-virus! (Real problem was: logging system was adding 3 new files per minute, not per second! - into the same directory, Windows can't handle such an abuse for long).
But think about it: trouble? turn off antivirus, now!
Do you see the picture? You can't run mission critical applications WITHOUT anti-virus on Windows: too risky. And you can't run mission critical applications on Windows WITH anti-virus: the anti-virus will cause you problems sooner than later.
So, you can write a better application for Windows than some application for Linux, sure. But you will not have a platform to run it.
"So now that you can't show that the 99.999% statistic is meaningful, you've gone on to grasping for 100% uptime." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @02:53AM (#28578301)
I can & HAVE shown that the people @ NASDAQ are saying this:
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us", said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
'Perfect' surely doesn't equal less than 99.999% - else, why use that word @ all?
QUESTION #1: Can YOU prove that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (based on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005) hasn't seen 99.999% uptime?
----
"Seriously - 100% uptime?" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @02:53AM (#28578301)
There's usually planned downtime, so 100% is probably unlikely... 99.999% is the mark, can you prove that is NOT what is being experienced @ NASDAQ on THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM?
----
"And thanks for proving my point." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @02:53AM (#28578301)
Thanks for proving MY point, because when I asked you a SIMPLE question, of:
QUESTION #2: "Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does"
(In fact, YOU avoided this question before, & blew it off... why IS that?)
APK
P.S.=> Answer my questions:
1.) Disprove that the PERFECT rating that Ken Richmond of NASDAQ gave THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM as being less than 99.999% (burden of proof is on YOU now)
+
2.) Tell us if ANY OTHER SYSTEM @ NASDAQ DOES THE JOB OF THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ... apk
I guess that you make your money from Windows development and do not have the faintest when it comes to any other OS tech. My advice to you is to broaden your horizons.
Don't make your problems my problems!
rm -R /TradeElect /Windows
rm -R
mkdir /Linux
Don't make your problems my problems!
"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" says Richmond. "The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions." - said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
I also suggest you see that quote from -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271
in addition to the one I used before:
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us", said Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
QUESTION #1: CAN you PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT EXPERIENCING 99.999% UPTIME USING SQLSERVER 2005 + WINDOWS SERVER 2003 IN THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
----
QUESTION #2: "Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does"
(Could it be because that when NASDAQ was rated as 99.999% uptime by NASDAQTRADER that it performs a major part of that rating in THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ, which uses Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005?)
I asked you THIS 2nd question before, & you ran from it... why is that?
APK
P.S.=> Answer my questions: Once more - now, the "burden of proof" is on YOU, & my evidences are above straight from Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ as Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 doing a PERFECT job for them as well as being said to provide ENTERPRISE GRADE SOLUTIONS, indicative of that 99.999% uptime that NASDAQTRADER gave NASDAQ for each of its systems (none of which in the others do the job of the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM based on Microsoft Windows Server 2003 + Microsoft SQLServer 2005)... apk
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28579131
See my subject-line, & good luck (burden of proof is on YOU & Sprocket to disprove that the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ using Microsoft Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 is NOT showing 99.999% uptime then)
APK
P.S.=> It's one thing to say it's not, but now? NOW you have to PROVE it's not... have fun! I have quotes from Mr. Ken Richmond of NASDAQ stating that Microsoft's wares in Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 are doing ENTERPRISE CLASS performances (displacing a Tandem mainframe in doing so) and behaving PERFECTLY for them - care to prove that is NOT 99.999% uptime, then? Go for it... apk
The facts stand and I won't challenge them, Microsoft was culpable in the issues this software had. What I will challenge is this insane notion that software written for Microsoft platforms is somehow inherently inferior. Either most of you posting don't actually work as developers or are simply out of touch with what's going on in the industry. At the moment there is a colossal brain drain away from development based on FOSS platforms and towards .Net which is to all intents and purposes Microsoft only.
.itjobswatch.co.uk the average salery for a ASP.Net developer in the City of London is £45k, compare this to the average rate for a PHP developer which is only £37k and having applied for both as a senior developer I can assure you, it's a hell of a lot easier to get the £45k in .Net than it is to get the £37k in PHP.
The reason? There are many technical ones but the main one, the one that made me quit developing LAMP applications and restart on ASP.Net is money money money. According to
In fact when applying for PHP roles last year I went forward for team leader/senior developer roles and was often offered as little as £30k with the assumption by the companies hiring that I should be thrilled with such an offer. I then got a tip off from someone who had made the switch already and applied for a junior ASP.Net role, starting rate? £32k.
I could go on about the increased professionalism, respect and code quality but really the money is the main thing, I can't waste my time in an Industry that seemingly prides itself on how cheap it is. Either FOSS development picks up its game or it will die under the dead sea effect.
I provided links proving the adequacy of *nix for high transaction volume applications. If MS was boasting of the LSE as their proof of MS+.NET+MSSQL adequacy in this arena, until it failed, then some alternative successful use cases should be provided, otherwise "The OS is irrelevant" is at best a straw dog considering it leaves out two of the three technologies, or at worst just wishful thinking.
PS. Your "THIS" link made a good point about MS fanboys and shills (are you one?) trying to control the way that MS is referred to in these discussions. That person wants us to use their stock ticker. That's pathetic. And, actually I'm 8.
First, anyone else notice the obvious issue of this application STILL USING SQL 2000, which reached end of regular maintenance nearly a year ago (Aug 4, 2008)? Seems to me that if this system was structured such that they couldn't easily move to SQL 2005 with Microsoft on the team building this solution, then it may not just be about the stack, but what was done to the technical platform (DBMS, OS, servers, even SAN) to tweak it to reach the performance service levels required. In short, it really is as much about the platform as the application - for this kind of system, you really can't separate the two. As such, a key ownership issue for anyone using MS software as their technical platform is the software lifecycle and maintenance requirement. I can certainly understand why a "2007 go-live" of this system meant they couldn't move to SQL 2005 at that time; but inherent in selecting SQLServer as the DBMS here was the acceptance by the LSE of the MS software cycle - and the need to upgrade in the next 24 months or so. SQL Server 2000 is now an 8 1/2 year old product; even with extended maintenance, I would not view it as suitable for use with something as important as a Stock Exchange. At the very least, I wonder if a combination of Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 for x64-based servers might be better able to address some of the performance issues here. Finally, I also wonder how much the LSE likes "Patch Tuesdays", especially when Microsoft releases OS and SQL Server (and even .NET) patches with "critical" status - meaning apply immediately. I bet that's lots of fun.
Secondly, I wonder about this being "a system of one". While Linux may not be quite up to the various commercial UNIX platforms in terms of robustness (don't shoot me; this is based on experience, and the gap is shrinking), using Linux and the tools common to both Linux and UNIX platforms - which have a very long (15-25 years) and evolved history together - means there are likely other solutions that are comparable to a Stock Exchange that could be used for "lessons learned" and leveraging for an understanding of how to build this application right. In this case, however, we are talking about a fairly new technical stack - Windows 2003 Server (2004 stability), SQL 2000 DBMS (2002 stability), .NET (how many versions since initial release? 3.5 now?), etc. - being used to create a new ground-up custom design. So choosing the MS stack for this also leads to a "vertical isolation" issue - given the relative newness of the tools, and the limited number of similar examples to draw from, does the choice of a platform here also make it more likely that addressing problems that come up would be more difficult? I know - a "chicken vs egg" conundrum - but this is a real concern, and one of the reasons why MS should share responsibility here with Accenture. Based on reading the 2007 press release, the LSE was apparently to become an example to the world of how the MS stack and commodity (HP) WIntel platforms could do the job that used to require Mainframes, VAXes, Tandems, or big UNIX servers. But as an earlier post has suggested, mainframes still exist for a good reason - 40+ years of experience running these kinds of workloads for specific industries requiring very high transaction volumes. I am not saying the MS technical stack won't eventually be able to run this kind of workload, but you can't shortcut the process of learning what it takes to achieve the performance and robustness required here, at least in my opinion.
For example, using SQL Server insures that you MUST use Windows Server as your OS in any event; Oracle, DB2, or even a custom solution could be placed on a number of different platforms that might have provided the ability to create a "hybrid" solution of Windows/.NET front-ends running against a UNIX/Linux (Oracle RAC?) or even Mainframe/DB2 back-end. So no using "the best of both worlds" either. This means having to learn the hard way how to scale up a SQL Server 2000 DBM
As far as Microsoft SQLServer 2005 & Windows Server 2003 (or other versions) making 99.999% uptime?
HERE WE GO (get ready to "eat your words", per my subject-line above, Sprocket)
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require. - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year,says Catassi. WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime for MDDS:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for
30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
Native XML support in the
For _Sprocket_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", boys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
Native XML support in the DB
----
Ho
For _Sprocket_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
Native XML suppo
I love MS bashing as much as the rest of you, however the way I heard it was that it was a network issue. I work closely with the JSE, Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who happen to run on LSE's infrastructure. I heard that the root cause had to do with badly handled UDP packets in a cisco router, that had been patched the previous week-end.
RTFM is not a radio station.
For _Sprocket_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", fools:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
Native XML support
For _Sprocket_, k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wise ass dolts:
(And "There YOU are", A/C, next below...)
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance AS
"Congratulations. You've found some people willing to claim 99.999% uptime for systems using Microsoft tech." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @05:10PM (#28582575)
That's right, little troll... lol, & yet MORE "b.s. double-talk" from the king troll himself: I have the data... you do NOT!
AND, you're The one who puts words into others' mouths left & right, & then has to END UP "EATING HIS OWN WORDS" (just like you thought I was talking about the trading data quote system, instead of the reporting system (learn to read, & don't make insinuations or false accusations)).
AND, since you now realize finally, that SQLServer 2005 can do 99.999% uptime?
YOU HAVE TO EAT YOUR WORDS, AGAIN... ( love it. )
You can try to "double-talk b.s." your way around & say the data I brought up has "nothing to do with NASDAQ" but, the fact is, it does, & the person who runs that project & the IS/IT dept. there apparently, disgrees with your assessment, per these quotes from him next (& I wager he knows a hell of a lot more than YOU do about this material, as do I, as a professional DB developer for 16++ yrs. now in addition to network admin. as well in that same timeframe & being multiply internationally published on my part in this science as well (how about you? Doubt it, on all accounts noted!)):
"Pity none of them have anything to do with NASDAQ." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @05:10PM (#28582575)
What a line of bullshit, you are unbelievable... ok, then here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999% uptime):
----
"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions." - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
IF you read my proofs of 99.999% uptime being possible on SQLServer 2005, then you must have noted that others who have HEAVIER transaction environs DID state 99.999%, like XEROX iirc, who turns more transactions per day than the reporting system @ NASDAQ does, no less!
You're NOT fooling anyone, anymore...
QUESTION #1: CAN you PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT EXPERIENCING 99.999% UPTIME USING SQLSERVER 2005 + WINDOWS SERVER 2003 IN THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
After all - You said it could not, I provided documented proof it does, as well as testimonials of PERFECT OPERATION by Ken Richmond above also - who do YOU think you are fooling by this point?
QUESTION #2: Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does?
APK
P.S.=> Quit running troll - answer the 2 questions above, instead of avoiding them (& prove SQLServer cannot & does not do 99.999% uptime @ any of these locations, as the "burden of proof" is now on YOU) as you have been, running like a scared girl, or something... lol! apk
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
Web solution managing millions of devices,
7 million txs / day, with 99.999% uptime
Built with Visual Studio 2005,
running on SQL Server 2005
Integrated with Visual Studio and .NET
Integrated development &
debugging experience
Execution location &
programming language choice
SQL Server Service Broker
Asynchronous queuing for
highly available applications
Reliable messaging for scale out
CacheSync
High performance ASP.NET 2.0 apps
XML Data Type
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115)
on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
Hey, wiseguy: Take a read, especially in regards to your IGNORANT comment I quoted above...
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999%
QUESTION #1: CAN you PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT EXPERIENCING 99.999% UPTIME USING SQLSERVER 2005 + WINDOWS SERVER 2003 IN THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM @ NASDAQ?
After all - You said it could not, I provided documented proof it does, as well as testimonials of PERFECT OPERATION by Ken Richmond above also - who do YOU think you are fooling by this point?
Can I prove it? No. And neither can you. That's the point. You claim otherwise. You harp about this word "perfect" as if it was a metric. But it isn't. And nothing else you've brought forward is proof. You've attempted to distract from your origional claim - and these 5 9's quotes are more distractions; they have nothing to do with the NASDAQ systems in question.
I never said the statistic wasn't possible. What I did was question your data. And I've done that despite your attempts to twist things to appear otherwise. And despite your apparent ire that someone would dare point out your mistakes.
As an aside, I also can not prove unicorns do not exist. Please feel free to count proving unicorns exist as another of your victories.
QUESTION #2: Does any other system do the job @ NASDAQ that THE OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM does?
A nice attempt to distract from the fact that your data is flawed. I've never argued that any given system does or does not do it's "job".
P.S.=> Quit running troll - answer the 2 questions above, instead of avoiding them (& prove SQLServer cannot & does not do 99.999% uptime @ any of these locations, as the "burden of proof" is now on YOU) as you have been, running like a scared girl, or something... lol! apk
At this point, I have to wonder if you have me confused with someone else. It would explain your meandering and name-calling. Although given that your "data" exposes a certain amount of delusion, I couldn't be sure.
And once again, you've proven my point. But please - do continue congratulating yourself for winning the good fight with the "trolls". I'm sure the unicorns will forever cheer your name.
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115)
on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
Hey, wiseguy: Take a read, especially in regards to your IGNORANT comment I quoted above...
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999%
"Can I prove it? No. And neither can you" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @08:40PM (#28583581)
Well, you asked I provide data, @ every turn (& you accused ME of saying this was the quote data system, WRONG, I never even said that & you admitted it troll)... now, when you are asked questions? We get a lot of "doubletalk" evasive b.s.:
If you can't prove something, then shut your mouth... or, I will continue to 'eat you alive', because you are a smarmy little prick & troll!
By the way? I have a LOT more evidence to MY credit than you do, by far: TOO easy!
See here, as to evidences of 99.999% uptime bigmouth -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=28583313
(Evidences that include Ken Richmond, the VP of systems & such @ NASDAQ stating SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 do a job PERFECTLY for NASDAQ)
99.999%, & other companies like XEROX in my evidences list? Do even MORE "TPM" per minute/per day, than the NASDAQ reporting system does, & PULL THE "FABLED '5-9's'"...
AND, LMAO: Ah, now that the "burden of proof" is on "SpRoCkEt" here, to show that Windows Server 2003 & SQLServer 2005 cannot pull off 99.999% uptime? He runs like a beyotch... &, I provided a TON of such evidences, where it DOES do the fabled "5-9's", by the truckload & in environs like XEROX from my evidences list that have HEAVIER tpm (transactions per minute or per day) than the NASDAQ MDDS REPORTING SYSTEM DOES no less, & they are doing 99.999% uptime also.
("TOO easy", like I said above - it always is, when it's the truth, vs. the "Pro-*NIX" crowd here and their pure BULLSHIT...)
APK
P.S.=> How does "eating your words" taste "SpRoCkEt"? Kind of like "the bitter taste of defeat"?? Gotta be, what with you now running from questions, failing to backup your claims &/or crap once I was able to back up mine + now that I ask YOU to disprove my evidences, & prove they are NOT pulling 99.999% uptime??? Well, NOW, we see YOUR "true colors" (you're a nobody, nothing, little troll)... apk
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115)
on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
Hey, wiseguy: Take a read, especially in regards to your IGNORANT comment I quoted above...
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,
capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999%
"Thanks, whoever you are. I haven't had the time to check out all your references, but this should put to rest a lot of old arguments. Definitely Microsoft software, and definitely a very reliable system. I'm impressed." - by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573265) Homepage
You're welcome: Whew - I had to fight off a LOAD of these "trolls" here, in K10quaint, Sprocket (the last one being the worst of them all, what a troll), & the other "A/C" who I am fairly certain is another troll here called "Americano" (when he posts with his registered username that is)...
Anyhow/anyways - I think you'll like THIS list, even better:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583587
(Especially considering it shows a LOT of places, that even pull HARDER/LARGER "tpm" (transactions-per-minute) than the MDDS NASDAQ OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM DOES (by FAR, especially in XEROX), & they are doing the 'Fabled "5-9's"', bigtime))...
APK
P.S.=> In any event, enjoy the URL above... apk
See my subject-line, & for once? Answer it (i.e.-> define PERFECTLY for us)
Then I will pull the definition of that word from the Merriam Webster dictionary online & we'll compare THEM (vs. your doubtless b.s. answer once more)
(I want to watch this double-talking b.s.'er monkey dance a bit, it is amusing!)
APK
P.S.=> Oh, & BEFORE YOU DO? Well, let's quote you:
"The "NASDAQ" evidence is not NASDAQ but another company." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @11:50PM (#28584317)
Really? Wasn't the guy who wrote this:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
The fellow that runs things IS/IT/MIS-wise @ NASDAQ? AND WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005? (don't avoid this question either)...
"Dance boy... dance", lol... more evasive b.s. from "SpRoCkEt" on the way, you can be sure... lol! apk
See my subject-line, & for once? Answer this question -> Define PERFECTLY for us!
Then I will pull the definition of that word from the Merriam Webster dictionary online & we'll compare THEM (vs. your doubtless b.s. answer once more)
(I want to watch this double-talking b.s.'er monkey dance a bit, it is TRULY amusing!)
APK
P.S.=> Oh, & BEFORE YOU DO? Well, let's quote you:
"The "NASDAQ" evidence is not NASDAQ but another company." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday July 04, @11:50PM (#28584317)
Really? Wasn't the guy who wrote this:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
The fellow that runs things IS/IT/MIS-wise @ NASDAQ? AND WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005? (don't avoid this question either)...
"Dance boy... dance", lol... more evasive b.s. from "SpRoCkEt" on the way, you can be sure... lol! apk
See subject-line, & guess what? I am LMAO... you REFUSE to define "PERFECTLY" for us!
Why is that? "Inquiring minds, want to know", lol...
(Keep running from simple questions, Sprocket, it's only making this post get rated back up again (after you & your sockpuppet accounts or pals "modded it down" from its original +5 INFORMATIVE, down to a +3 only - that's ok though: It's back up to +4 INFORMATIVE (so, someone must be agreeing with my evidences, especially after they're ALL seeing you run like a scared "beyotch")
Answer my question, & DEFINE the word "perfectly" for us, won't you?
(Then, tell us what Ken Richmond, the mgr. of market data systems @ NASDAQ said that SQLServer 2005 & Windows Server 2003 are running like for he & his crew over @ NASDAQ, as well, won't you??)
APK
P.S.=> Of course, this little weasel "SpRoCkEt" here, will keep evading this, as-per-usual... lol! Trolls - "Too EASY" to put into their place... apk
See subject-line, & just answer the question, & define the word "PERFECTLY" for us, won't you?
Then, I'll just get its definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary online (just in case you try to "b.s." your way around it, as you have everything else, indicated by your avoidance of SIMPLE questions like that one... lol! STILL, I have to know - Why is it that you keep avoiding that SIMPLE question? "Inquiring minds, want to know", lol)...
Then, once you DEFINE PERFECTLY for us?
Please - DO tell us what Ken Richmond, the mgr. of market data systems @ NASDAQ said that SQLServer 2005 & Windows Server 2003 are running like for he & his crew over @ NASDAQ, as well, won't you??
Let ME "refresh your mind" as to what Mr. Ken Richmond, the director of market information systems @ NASDAQ said, about the combination of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005, via quoting him:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
You're on the ropes troll... &, I LOVE IT!
APK
P.S.=> Keep running from simple questions, Sprocket, it's only making this post get rated back up again!
(Which is nice to see, especially after you & your sockpuppet accounts or pals "modded it down" from its original +5 INFORMATIVE, down to a +3 only - that's ok though: It's back up to +4 INFORMATIVE once more, & thus, on the FRONT PAGE of /. (so, someone must be agreeing with my evidences, especially after they're ALL seeing you run like a scared "beyotch"))
More evasive b.s. from "SpRoCkEt" on the way, you can be sure... lol! apk
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY)
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"IT managers insist their enterprise management software must be made highly available when its task is to manage highly available services. They ask, "How can I accurately measure service levels in the 99.999% range with IT management tools" -> http://www.fognet.com/HAOV-inforum.html
(OH, I think THAT will do, for now... lol!)
APK
P.S.=> What did Ken Richmond LIST as a benefit up in his list, SpRoCkEt? And, while you are @ it SPROCKET??
Please, DO define the word "PERFECTLY" for us, won't you? Quit avoiding that, as you have constantly here, especially in regards to Mr. Richmond's statement here:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
LMAO - this is FUN, watching this "monkey boy" named "SpRoCkEt" dance, for all the b.s. he has given us dealing with him... by the by? My post?? Back @ +4 INFORMATIVE again (someone is liking what I put out vs. your crap SPROCKET), & it's back on the "FRONT PAGE" here on this site, once more (go! quick!! Get 1 of your "sock puppet" accounts & mod it down again, Sprocket... lol!)... apk
I do things in my parent's basement @ HOME so you KNOW Windows Server 2003 Systems + SQLServer 2005 is successful at NASDAQ!
P.S.=> lmaoroflcopter apk
That card sounds like BloombergAnywhere - bloomberg is just a market data provider, and they use this to make sure one account can be used only by one user, but at any machine of their choice. That one has nothing to do with security as such, just access control to a paid service (though I'm sure he has plenty security measures as well).
Latency is for algorithmic trading, where the human trader just monitors the parameters, and it's the algo that takes in the market price feed and immediately responds with orders. It's enough if the latency of the *GUI layer* including workstation OS is under 100ms or so because the latency of the human response dominates that anyway.
"Now if you can show me where it notes what they're talking about beyond "high performance technology", we might be able to clear this up. I'm especially interested where it mentions Microsoft products. Or even MDSS." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
I am right here, "better data", per what you requested (& much to YOUR regret, little troll):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY)
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(OH, I think THAT will do, for now... lol!)
"You want to prove your point? Come up with better data." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
I did, per YOUR requests for EXACTLY what you wanted... so, why don't YOU come up with better data & some answers to my questions in my P.S. below? Quit evading that question, where I ask you to DEFINE PERFECTLY for us all...
"And as an aside - I don't have to put words in your mouth." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
QUESTION: Did you, or did you not, ask me if I thought I was telling about the quote trading data system @ NASDAQ in this thread or not? Because in my 1st post, I definitely said "The official trade data dissemination system", & THAT is MDDS... what I have been speaking of, all thru this thread... NOT WHAT YOU SAID/ASKED.
(Learn to read &, a YES or NO answer will do nicely here on yo
"Now if you can show me where it notes what they're talking about beyond "high performance technology", we might be able to clear this up. I'm especially interested where it mentions Microsoft products. Or even MDSS." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
I am right here, "better data", per what you requested (& much to YOUR regret, little troll), even though you avoid SIMPLE quetions when I ask them (like YOU defining the word PERFECTLY for us, lol, why is it you avoid THAT? "Inquring minds want to know", lmao):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY)
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(OH, I think THAT will do, for now... lol!)
"You want to prove your point? Come up with better data." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
I did, per YOUR requests for EXACTLY what you wanted... so, why don't YOU come up with better data & some answers to my questions in my P.S. below? Quit evading that question, where I ask you to DEFINE PERFECTLY for us all...
"And as an aside - I don't have to put words in your mouth." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Friday July 03, @08:41PM (#28576591)
QUESTION: Did you, or did you not, ask me if I thought I was telling about the quote trading data system @ NASDAQ in this thread or not? Because in my 1st post, I definitely said "The official trade data dissemination system",
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115)
on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
The URL below has several evidences of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (or other versions even) pulling off the "Fabled 5-9's" of 99.999% uptime availability
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583539
Examples like XEROX even, pulling off 99.999% uptime, & doing MORE TRANSACTIONS PER DAY THAN NASDAQ's MDDS official trade data dissemination system does per day by orders of magnitude no less
(PLUS many more than just Xerox, ones like FujiFilm, + NASDAQ even with Ken Richmond stating HIGH AVAILABILITY was gained ( = 99.999%) & that MDDS, which uses SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 as MDDS, & he stated it ran PERFECTLY for them (anyone care to define the word PERFECTLY?)).
APK
P.S.=> Whoever modded this ignoramus "k10quaint" up to +5 informative is way, Way, WAY "off base" per the last statement k10quaint made alone - Windows clearly CAN pull a Fabled 5=9's/99.999% uptime in industrial high tpm environs (whether the true trolls on this website (the "Pro-*NIX crew" & waddling PENGUINS who cannot THINK FOR THEMSELVES while chanting "We HaTe WiNdOwS...", lol) can stand that or not, it is reality) - either he was modded up by ignorant fools like himself, OR, he used a "sock puppet" account to do so himself (or his fellow "Anti-Microsoft" idiot brigade did so for him, take your pick)
"The marketing was clever enough to fool anyone who would believe Windows can have that sort of performance and uptime ;)" - by k10quaint (1344115)
on Friday July 03, @01:27PM (#28573263)
Hey, wiseguy: Take a read, especially in regards to your IGNORANT comment I quoted above...
For Sprocket ( the troll himself ), k10quant, cbiltcliffe & the A/C one most of all, time to "eat your words", wiseguys:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org]
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132] [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
As well as Mr. Ken Richmond stating that SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 doing the job as the OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (MDDS) operating PERFECTLY for NASDAQ, below, quoted:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 wit
See my subject-line, & this data in the URL below, RAMMS+EIN (of all people, I think YOU will like it... a LOT):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28587301
See there, I think you will like it...
ESPECIALLY XEROX (which does do a HIGHER transactions-per-day amount than even MDDS @ NASDAQ & at 99.999% uptime (it's official trade data dissemination system, which DOES pull 99.999% since Mr. Ken Richmond states it runs PERFECTLY for them, & has noted it gains ENTERPRISE AVAILABLITY for NASDAQ alao) has, by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (100's of thousands per day, vs. NASDAQ reporting system doing 100,000 queries per day)) XEROX truly is the classic example, & there ARE a few others, like THE MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY, + more...
Heck, I will post it here for your reference, specifically on NASDAQ also:
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY)
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(Note my keyword SEARCH term? "Enterprise + Availability"? This is ALL what came up almost, as evidence as to what THAT term means)
----
"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions." - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time da
"Now that your pathetic attempt to conflate NASDAQ trading system uptime with MDDS uptime has been dispelled" - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @05:19PM (#28575205)
You're once again, trying to put words in my mouth, I NEVER STATED... not once! In my VERY FIRST POST, I said this, verbatim:
NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data
FROM HERE (for others' reference) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28571315
(Which IS what I stated it was, I NEVER ONCE SAID IT RAN ANYTHING BUT THAT, despite your trolling crap placing words into my mouth I never uttered, lol!)
The quote trading data system is run by another program (they doubtless have millions into it, & it works, no reason to change)... but, that quote trading data system does NOT run the reporting to customers + end users for NASDAQ does it? No... it does, what IT does, & that is IT...
Does the TIBCO middleware custom in-house app for NASDAQ that runs the shop floor quote data, also do the reporting? NO.
(I.E.-> No 1 single program "does it all")
Well, Ken Richmond of NASDAQ (VP of market system development) says it runs "PERFECTLY" for them... care to define what PERFECTLY means? Your fellow troll SPROCKET will do ANYTHING in this thread to avoid defining that term, as it will PROVE 99.999% uptime of MDDS to he & others, lol!
Also? More data on THAT account (99.999% uptime in NASDAQ's MDDS system)?
Ok:
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY)
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(Note my keyword SEARCH term? "Enterprise + Availability"? This is ALL what came up almost, as evidence as t
I mean, seriously, that's worse than pathetic! You can make stable systems on ANY platform as long as you plan for things to go wrong.
After all, fault tolerance for mission critical systems should be at the application level for the most part. Doing it at the system level makes you entirely dependent on the system itself remaining stable.
It sounds more likely that the developers who made the system were run of the mill "I made a calculator in C#, I'm a real programmer now!" types. You find these guys in any language.
In systems like this, if you have to use SQL, the use Oracle on whatever system Oracle delivers on. Make it redundant as hell, make at least several fail-over paths and if the UI is web based, then load balance with fail-over across at least 10 servers. No single byte of data should exist on any ONE machine, it should be duplicated/mirrored to hell and back.
At this level, it makes absolutely no difference what platform you're running on, in fact, running a Java platform on Windows AND Linux (or another Unix) should be a minimum so that when operating specific bugs pop up, fail over would keep things running on the system which doesn't have the bug.
Did you even read your own post (assuming you're the same AC, that is...)?
According to your first post:
on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005
How is using the the end of June as a starting point fair, when your post itself says the latter part of the year?
Especially since SQL Server 2005 wasn't even released until November 7, 2005.
Your post's subject also claimed that:
NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows
Then when I called you on it, you changed that to 4++ years, which you supported with completely bogus math.
The earliest possible date for 4 years on Windows would be Nov 7, 2009. As of now, we're less than 4 years.
So, I repeat my question:
Been doing your calculations on Excel?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
"NASDAQ does not mention MDDS anywhere on their website that I could find. Please find a page served by nasdaq.com that mentions they even sell MDDS to anyone, I could find no mention of anyone who buys or receives the MDDS service anywhere." - by k10quaint (1344115) on Friday July 03, @05:19PM (#28575205)
Well, then HERE YOU ARE (this is what made your fellow troll, SPROCKET, take off like a scared little girl, because it shows 99.999% uptime/Enterprise Availability levels from MDDS @ NASDAQ):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY, which Sprocket your fellow troll REFUSES to define that term for us in this thread as well, vs. what is quoted below in regards to "PERFECTLY") here:
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 ----
----
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [linkedin.com]
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
APK
P.S.=> How you were modded up to +5, after all of your mistakes here? Boggles the mind... actually, lol,
"I certainly got under your skin, didn't I?" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Tuesday July 07, @03:52AM (#28604931)
No, I'd have to say it is the other way around, especially considering you "prided yourself" on not calling names, & yet? That VERY THIN VENEER cracked when you stated this:
----
"It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:44PM (#28596879)
----
"Pot calling the kettle black", once again... & the very fact you have to 'break your own rules' makes me realize you are TOO easy to manipulate - seeing you do so makes me realize you can be EASILY "rattled in your game"... too easily.
(Small wonder you are a nobody in this field who has never accomplished anything worth noting that was noted so by others...)
More "trollish delusions", & what I predicted - evasions of defining the word perfectly, and also evading defining AVAILABILITY, as it applies to computing uptime and he is disregarding the definitions I put out... predicatable, typical, & TOO EASY, like usual.
(All "SpRoCkEt" here has, is semantics of word games - & it took him FOREVER to come up with that block of crap/wall of text above no less in the post prior to/parent to this one... lol! That's how I know his "cage is rattled" the most, and, the fact that he evades questions to no end - for DAYS, lol, doubtless "formulating more b.s. answers" in his DULL brain... lmao!)
----
"I guess it hard to handle when you've been proven wrong" - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Tuesday July 07, @03:52AM (#28604931)
Oh, really: Funny, I am NOT the one avoiding defining a simple word, PERFECTLY, as you have, now am I? No... when asked questions, I answer them, & not "skirt around them" evading them, as you did here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1292401&cid=28597129
TOO EASY... & that sure "got under YOUR skin", lol...
(By forcing what I knew & predicted would happen out of you - once more, you avoid answering simple questions, & you lose by default right there, because you know, & so does anyone else reading, that if you do so you will defeat yourself even moreso).
(LMAO - Ah, "too easy!")
APK
P.S.=> Oh, & by the way? Here is what "rattled sprocket's game" so badly, once more for reader's reference here, from -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1292401&cid=28597129
SPROCKET define PERFECTLY & AVAILABILITY, won't you? Why do you avoid that simple set of questions??
(LOL, I know why... _Sprocket? shot his big mouth off saying NASDAQ's MDDS was not doing 99.999% uptime, & when HE was asked to prove that? He admitted he COULD NOT!)
Also?
See subject-line above, & this data:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Sprocket, 5 small questions (& please, no wall of text w/out documented backing @ least - quit evading answering them, especially the 1st one, & then we can refer to what is @ the bottom of my "p.s." below, vs. your evasive walls of text):
----
1.) DEFINE THE WORD PERFECT or PERFECTLY, won't you? (which is what Mr. Ken Richmond, VP of market data systems @ NASDAQ said MDDS performs like, verbatim quoted below & that it provides "Enterprise Availability")
2.) CAN YOU PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT SEEING 99.999% UPTIME ON MDDS? (NASDAQ's OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (which is what I said from the get go, not anything else, though you attempted to IMPLY that I did, & yet you had to admit I did NOT say that here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583581, lol)
3.) Did I ever once say that MDDS is the quote system @ NASDAQ? If so, SHOW US ALL, where I did... (you already admitted I did not, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28574671 so that "argument" of yours (straw man type b.s.) fails on that alone - failure to provide PROOF, which is also what you also fail to provide to prove that MDDS does not give 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ, lmao! Sprocket? Putting words in others' mouths they never said is NOT good debate, it always FAILS, as you have, because you do that)
4.) Does any other program @ NASDAQ do what MDDS (composed of SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003) does, inclusive of the TIBCO + custom programmed trading floor quote system?
5.) Did you have to ADMIT that SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 can provide 99.999% uptime? Sure you did, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28582575 especially after the XEROX example, which does many orders of magnitude more transactions PER DAY than NASDAQ's MDDS even (& that alone says NASDAQ is pulling that easily enough, alongside the QUOTED testimonials of Ken Richmond of NASDAQ below (which is what I always provide, quoted verbatim testimonials, & all YOU have? Is what your "trollish delusional brain" interprets (without backing & purely opinion - don't like that? Well, show us PROOF that NASDAQ's MDDS is not doing 99.999% uptime then, simple!)))
----
You're going to love his evasions - they're classic humor! Get ready for a "wall of text" style evasion, everyone... lol!
(However, of course, our "favorite troll" will evade answering them, short & sweet style, because all he will be able to do, lmao, is put up a 'wall of text', complete with evasions of these simple questions... like usual: Trolls - they're TOO predictable, easy to manipulate with facts, & TOO easy to "push their buttons" (especially when they're proven WRONG, as Sprocket here has been))
Also, there IS the simple fact that you had to resort to name calling as well, directed MY way, here, which you "prided yourself" on NOT doing (but that THIN veneer has been cracked, TOO easily (trolls - they ALWAYS "fold under pressure" & use "pot calling the kettle black" tactics + put words into others' mouths they never said also):
----
"It's worth a chuckle if you enjoy watching a Microsoft fanboy kook in his natural habitat." - by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday July 06, @01:44PM (#28596879)
----
And that shows ANYONE that you are "on the ropes", troll... along with your evading answering questions in a short manner (walls of text, you said it yourself? Are MEANINGLESS -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28576591 & yet I do so with quoted backing, & you? LOL, you create these in evasive res
Sprocket, 8 small questions (& please, no wall of text w/out documented backing @ least - quit evading answering them, especially the 1st one, & then we can refer to what is @ the bottom of my "p.s." below, vs. your evasive walls of text):
----
1.) DEFINE THE WORD PERFECT or PERFECTLY, won't you? (which is what Mr. Ken Richmond, VP of market data systems @ NASDAQ said MDDS performs like, verbatim quoted below & that it provides "Enterprise Availability")
2.) CAN YOU PROVE THAT NASDAQ IS NOT SEEING 99.999% UPTIME ON MDDS? (NASDAQ's OFFICIAL TRADE DATA DISSEMINATION SYSTEM (which is what I said from the get go, not anything else, though you attempted to IMPLY that I did, & yet you had to admit I did NOT say that here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28583581, lol)
3.) Did I ever once say that MDDS is the quote system @ NASDAQ? If so, SHOW US ALL, where I did... (you already admitted I did not, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28574671 so that "argument" of yours (straw man type b.s.) fails on that alone - failure to provide PROOF, which is also what you also fail to provide to prove that MDDS does not give 99.999% uptime for NASDAQ, lmao! Sprocket? Putting words in others' mouths they never said is NOT good debate, it always FAILS, as you have, because you do that)
4.) Does any other program @ NASDAQ do what MDDS does @ NASDAQ? (composed of SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003) inclusive of the TIBCO + custom programmed trading floor quote system?
5.) Did you have to ADMIT that SQLServer 2005 + Windows Server 2003 can provide 99.999% uptime? Sure you did, right here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&cid=28582575 especially after the XEROX example, which does many orders of magnitude more transactions PER DAY than NASDAQ's MDDS even (& that alone says NASDAQ is pulling that easily enough, alongside the QUOTED testimonials of Ken Richmond of NASDAQ below (which is what I always provide, quoted verbatim testimonials, & All YOU have? Is what your "trollish delusional brain" interprets (without backing & purely opinion - don't like that? Well, show us PROOF that NASDAQ's MDDS is not doing 99.999% uptime then, simple!)))
6.) What EXACTLY is your role in this field/science (computing), professionally, & how many years of it do you have under your belt, + how many degrees around it or certs @ the very least also?
7.) Have you EVER been published in written publications such as "trade rags" as they are often called, for work you have done?
8.) Has work you done ever been featured as a finalist @ Microsoft "tech ed" or like trade shows, & for 2 yrs. in a ROW, as a finalist in that show's hardest category?
----
You're going to love his evasions - they're classic humor! Get ready for a "wall of text" style evasion, everyone... lol!
(However, of course, our "favorite troll" will evade answering them, short & sweet style, because all he will be able to do, lmao, is put up a 'wall of text', complete with evasions of these simple questions... like usual: Trolls - they're TOO predictable, easy to manipulate with facts, & TOO easy to "push their buttons" (especially when they're proven WRONG, as Sprocket here has been))
Also, there IS the simple fact that you had to resort to name calling as well, directed MY way, here, which you "prided yourself" on NOT doing, quoted verbatim, below next (but that THIN veneer has been cracked, TOO easily (trolls - they ALWAYS "fold under pressure" & use "pot calling the kettle black" tactics + put words into others' mouths they never said also)):
----
"It's