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

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

mysteryflyer

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.

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 ?

"Mystery Flyer" wrote in message
...
: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 ?

In comparison, you come a close second to Jade Goody in not using your
brain.

: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.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
: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.

Err, no they got it wrong, 'severe gale force winds' is not the same
as 'severe storm force winds' which is what we got - only on the night
before was there any mention of 'severe storm force winds' (bordering
on hurricane force).