Slashdot Mirror
Secret Service Runs At "Six Sixes" Availability
PCM2 writes "ABC News is reporting that the US Secret Service is in dire need of server upgrades. 'Currently, 42 mission-oriented applications run on a 1980s IBM mainframe with a 68 percent performance reliability rating,' says one leaked memo. That finding was the result of an NSA study commissioned by the Secret Service to evaluate the severity of their computer problems. Curiously, upgrades to the Service's computers are being championed by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who says he's had 'concern for a while' about the issue."
To windows, and get 73% uptime!
Or.. that other OS that you don't have to license per seat, and get in the solid 90+% uptime.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Mainframes of yore had a hell of a lot of moving parts: a large system might have dozens of tape drives and disk drives. Tape drives in particular broke down all the time and were taken offline until the maintenance guy came for his weekly or monthly visit and tightened the belts or whatever the hell they did. Knuth remarked on that situation in his magnum opus TAOCP vol 3 on sorting and searching. In the part about sorting with tape drives, he remarked that he'd never seen a large computer installation where all the tape drives were working. You'd have a computer with ten tape drives, two of them would be down pending repairs, and you'd use the other eight. In other words your computer was operational but not FULLY operational.
There is a similar situation in today's data centers. Even at the wimpy little shop I worked in last year (about 2000 computers) some were always down. We were doing pretty good if the number down at any moment was less than a few dozen. I don't think we ever had a single day of being fully operational (every single computer up at the same time). That was fine, it wasn't a requirement, it was a distributed system and the data and functions were all sufficiently replicated that we kept running, by design, even with parts of the system unavailable.
There's something about this whole thing that simply doesn't ring true. I believe parts, I believe they have a 1980's main frame, I believe it's not terribly reliable but something about the whole: leaked memo according to Joe Leiberman, we need more money, they won't give us more money' spiel sounds off. I suspect they have huge chunks of computing that's much newer and reliable, I'd be shocked if that IBM serves any significant purpose.
If nothing else I predict a large percentage of the umpteen million dollar final cost somehow going to Connecticut, but I'm probably just incredibly jaded.
it's an IBM mainframe. They can replace it with another (modern) IBM mainframe, no code change necessary. Posting anonymously, so you can believe it or not, but I do have a clue about the specifics. It's not a technical problem, it's not a financial problem, it's a bureaucratic problem. Government at it's finest.
Don't ever underestimate the difficulty of porting specialized applications
One Government agency I know of was informed with 5 years advance notice that their long time mainframe computer manufacturer would no longer be in the hardware business nor support the operating system. The Govt let a huge contract to port the applications. After several years, and millions spent in progress payments, that conversion attempt failed. So did several more. So after 10 years and about 4 attempts at conversions using some of the biggest software contract houses in the country they were still running on the original hardware and software and buying used equipment for backup. One of the few in the world.
It got done eventually I suppose.
Why, you ask, was it such a task to convert? Because they were attempting to replace something that had been custom built on top of and inside an operating system over perhaps 20 years. Distributed database and multiple geographic locations processing bits of the data using computers from multiple manufacturers communicating together long before the Internet (not that you could have put that kind of data on the net). So in order to convert, it took an understanding of how the whole thing worked and those that had that level of understanding had long since retired. It wasn't Cobol that was the problem but human limitations.
Can you convert that into a more familiar unit, like Library of Congresses?
You know the Library of Congresses is a pretty reliable machine. Does anybody know what its downtime is?
The downtime for the Library of Congress is 4:30 pm - 8:30 am, Monday - Friday, and all day Sunday. That translates into an uptime of about 28.6%. If you take the Secret Service 68% as uptime, then it would be 2.4 Library of Congresses.