Slashdot Mirror
What Developers Can Learn From Healthcare.gov
An anonymous reader writes "Soured by his attempt to acquire a quote from healthcare.gov, James Turner compiled a short list of things developers can learn from the experience: 'The first highly visible component of the Affordable Health Care Act launched this week, in the form of the healthcare.gov site. Theoretically, it allows citizens, who live in any of the states that have chosen not to implement their own portal, to get quotes and sign up for coverage. I say theoretically because I've been trying to get a quote out of it since it launched on Tuesday, and I'm still trying. Every time I think I've gotten past the last glitch, a new one shows up further down the line. While it's easy to write it off as yet another example of how the government (under any administration) seems to be incapable of delivering large software projects, there are some specific lessons that developers can take away. 1) Load testing is your friend.'"
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I'd have a hard time believing that the servers have been this consistently overwhelmed with traffic. A more likely explanation is that a poorly designed system was patched together from components hastily built from a thousand different vendors. The web-app equivalent of a diesel engine held together with duct-tape and baling wire was then rolled out without any real testing.
The only time, "Good enough for government work," has ever escaped my lips was when I was confronted with a marginally functional mess of spaghetti code.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
GTA V? Sim City? Final Fantasy? Battlefield?
Turns out millions of users who start using something on the same day often don't follow the expected and tested for behavior.
Anyone who launches a service like this should expect to spend the first week in triage mode, and the first month making adjustments. I'd like to say proper planning would mean that never occurs, but the only way to insure that would be to spend 10x what is really needed. People would hate the government even worse if they did that.
This is not news, yet. It will be news in a month if it is still fubared.
All that needs to happen is for Boehner to bring the Senate bill to the floor of the House and BOOM the government will reopen because there are enough moderate Republicans + Democrats to pass it.
The idea that the Democrats are forcing the Government to close is ludicrous.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I'd have a hard time believing that the servers have been this consistently overwhelmed with traffic. A more likely explanation is that a poorly designed system was patched together from components hastily built from a thousand different vendors. The web-app equivalent of a diesel engine held together with duct-tape and baling wire was then rolled out without any real testing.
The only time, "Good enough for government work," has ever escaped my lips was when I was confronted with a marginally functional mess of spaghetti code.
You needn't source from multiple vendors to get a system that falls apart under load - single vendor solutions are also susceptible to such problems.. Even if you specify load testing in the contract, that doesn't mean that their load test had any relation to actual real-world load. Of course, the hard part is predidcting what load to expect, especially with a system that has a potential audience of 100+ million people.
Why would you want to do this? If you had an income that fluctuated each year, would you not save in the good years so you could maintain a reasonable quality of lifestyle in the barren years? Or would you downsize your house and sell your car every other year as your income fluctuated.
Balancing the budget is not the challenge. The real challenge is finding a government that can save when the going is good, and convincing the US electorate of the need for a rainy-day fund, rather than giving it all back and more in tax breaks.
I'm not sure load testing alone would be the solution. For a site like this, I see little point in making the expenditure to handle all the day 0 traffic.
Rather they should have load tested to find out how many users they could safely serve. Then they should have simply restricted the number of active connections. Other users should have seen a static holding page. That way, everyone that gets through gets a good experience.
By adopting this approach, you can save money. And, given the publicity available pre launch, they could easily have explained how this would work so as to manage expectations. After the first few week or so, they would likely be able to manage the traffic comfortably.
> So, no, the Democrats are not the innocent party here. They'd rather see a shutdown than a delay in funding ACA which doesn't prevent the exchanges from opening anyway.
A delay in funding of the ACA is not part of ANY bill provided by the House.
The bills that were provided either completely defund the ACA or delay the individual mandate.
It is utterly preposterous to engage in this sort of legislative action when people in many states are in the process of signing up for these programs. It would be nuts to change the law at this time. They are taking the scurrilous tactic of attaching a bill that would never pass on its own to a measure needed to run the rest of the government. It's despicable. It is a form of blackmail.
The bills passed by the House also prohibit Congress and its employees from receiving a subsidy for the plans they purchase from the exchanges, (something every other employer who provides coverage offers) and they make optional various women's health programs. Including breast feeding services and battered wife counseling services.
Ultimately trying to change policy as part of a continuing resolution is absolute insanity. These bills have have historically been limited to only technical changes in law.
The last time this sort of shenanigans were tried was in 1995 when a Republican Congress tried to change the Medicare contribution rate. It too led to a government shutdown. Back then the Republicans were also rightly blamed for over-reaching.
The history is there. The Republicans are repeating the same damn mistakes they made in 18 years ago. The will suffer the same outcome as before.
There is nothing to negotiate. Policy decisions do not belong in a CR. By including policy changes in a CR the Republicans are forcing a shutdown.
The fact remains that a clean CR would pass the House. It is the will of the representatives of the people who are elected by the voters to pass such a bill.
The only people preventing the introduction and passage of this are the Republican leadership. It is THEIR decision to shut down the government of the United States.