On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:29:27 +0000, Mystery Flyer
wrote:

wrote:
The TFL website had difficulties updating due to the volume of hits or
the amount of changes being made, not sure which.

Both of which would have been acceptable in 1994 at the dawn of the
Internet but really arent acceptable excuses in 2007

Internet traffic is liable to grow faster than the infrastructure can
cope with it, in the same way that motor vehicle traffic has proven to
grow faster than the infrastructure can cope with it.

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:26:29 -0000 someone who may be "BH Williams"
wrote this:-

It's no use asking somebody like Ross
how long his train is going to be delayed while he's still underneath it
with his Junior Hacksaw.

To which he might have replied, as a driver of my acquaintance did 'A
F****** sight quicker if I didn't have to keep answering the radio'

A long time ago off Norway a Royal Navy destroyer was stationary, a
German shell having smashed the main steam pipe to the engines.
Given that the objectives of a warship captain are for the ship to
float, move and fight (in that order) this was not a happy
situation.

While the engineering people were desperately trying to get some
boilers going and connected to the engines they stationed a seaman
at the voice pipe to the bridge. The first time the bridge asked how
long it would be the seaman asked the engineering people, added a
bit more time and passed it on. After that the seaman didn't bother
asking, he just deducted roughly the amount of time that had passed
since the last time and passed that back, in an increasingly curt
fashion.

That wouldn't always be possible on a driver only train, especially
as "safety" frowns on asking passengers to help these days. However,
a spare member of staff or the guard might be able to deal with some
of these enquiries.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:29:27 +0000, Mystery Flyer
wrote:

wrote:
The TFL website had difficulties updating due to the volume of hits or
the amount of changes being made, not sure which.

Both of which would have been acceptable in 1994 at the dawn of the
Internet but really arent acceptable excuses in 2007

Internet traffic is liable to grow faster than the infrastructure can
cope with it, in the same way that motor vehicle traffic has proven to
grow faster than the infrastructure can cope with it.

Buying hardware and bandwidth for your portal to cope with spikes in
demand is a well understood aspect of the provision of Internet based
services.

Its an entirely different case to the whole demand growing over time
beyond what the infrastructure can cope with.

mysteryflyer

"Mystery Flyer" wrote in message
...
James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:29:27 +0000, Mystery Flyer
wrote:

wrote:
The TFL website had difficulties updating due to the volume of
hits or
the amount of changes being made, not sure which.

Both of which would have been acceptable in 1994 at the dawn of
the Internet but really arent acceptable excuses in 2007

Internet traffic is liable to grow faster than the infrastructure
can
cope with it, in the same way that motor vehicle traffic has proven
to
grow faster than the infrastructure can cope with it.

Buying hardware and bandwidth for your portal to cope with spikes in
demand is a well understood aspect of the provision of Internet
based services.

Its an entirely different case to the whole demand growing over time
beyond what the infrastructure can cope with.


Look moron, if the severity of the storm had been known of in advance
(I don't think God works for any TOC...) they would have made
provision...

Start using your remaining brain cell rather than showing the world
how many dead one you have.

:Jerry: wrote:
"Mystery Flyer" wrote in message
...
James Farrar wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:29:27 +0000, Mystery Flyer
wrote:

wrote:
The TFL website had difficulties updating due to the volume of
hits or
the amount of changes being made, not sure which.

Both of which would have been acceptable in 1994 at the dawn of
the Internet but really arent acceptable excuses in 2007
Internet traffic is liable to grow faster than the infrastructure
can
cope with it, in the same way that motor vehicle traffic has proven
to
grow faster than the infrastructure can cope with it.
Buying hardware and bandwidth for your portal to cope with spikes in
demand is a well understood aspect of the provision of Internet
based services.

Its an entirely different case to the whole demand growing over time
beyond what the infrastructure can cope with.


Look moron, if the severity of the storm had been known of in advance
(I don't think God works for any TOC...) they would have made
provision...

Start using your remaining brain cell rather than showing the world
how many dead one you have.


Thanks so much for the mindful contribution to the discussion. Are you
connected to Endemol ?

:Jerry: wrote:
"big snip
Its an entirely different case to the whole demand growing over time
beyond what the infrastructure can cope with.


Look moron, if the severity of the storm had been known of in advance
(I don't think God works for any TOC...) they would have made
provision...

Start using your remaining brain cell rather than showing the world
how many dead one you have.


Thanks so much for the insightful contribution to the discussion. Its
really refreshing to have such profound commentary.

I wonder, are you connected to Endemol at all? They need strategic
thinkers I understand to help with their product positioning.

mysteryflyer

:Jerry: wrote:

Look moron, if the severity of the storm had been known of in advance
(I don't think God works for any TOC...) they would have made
provision...

Actually the severity of the storm was fairly accurately predicted as early
as last Sunday, when the BBC1 "Countryfile" long-range forecast for the week
was predicting severe gale force winds for late Wednesday night into the
Thursday morning rush hour (actually the arrival was a few hours delayed)
with structural damage and severe disruption to transport on Thursday
morning.

:Jerry: wrote:

Look moron, if the severity of the storm had been known of in advance
(I don't think God works for any TOC...) they would have made
provision...

Aside from the fact that the severity was known in advance (Hint: its
called a Weather Forecast - look it up in the dictionary) , wtf has the
storm got to do with whether a website can cope with a spike in the
number of hits? Did you think the webserver took one look out the
window and thought "bugger this , I'm not serving any pages till this
blows over"??

B2003

I'd like to congratulate National Rail, Transport for London, Southern
Trains and the BBC for all failing to provide any kind of up-to-date
travel information on station closures during the storms on Thursday.

TFL Realtime travel news page
(http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/realtime/?mode=tube&time=now) was working at
18:00 with up-to-date information for Tube and DLR. They replaced usual
graphics with text-only page, but it worked.

alex_t wrote:
TFL Realtime travel news page
(http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/realtime/?mode=tube&time=now) was working at
18:00 with up-to-date information for Tube and DLR. They replaced usual
graphics with text-only page, but it worked.

I was a bit disappointed by the info on the FCC website on Friday,
which had lots of individual bulletins but no simple summary saying
what was happening *right now*. Having to read 4 or 5 service updates
and line updates is rather conffusing at the best of times. It wasn't
helped by a service bulletin that hadn't been removed from earlier in
the week!

Colleagues at work were looking at their respective TOC sites and most
had gone for the single page, plain text, pages to help cope with
demand. Even the Journey Check had simplified itself for some of the
day on Thursday. Overall, I think everything was done incredibly well
on Thursday, given the circumstances, but Friday was a bit more of a
mess as the 'clean up' took place.

Jonathan