| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
London Stock Exchange Drops Windows System | |
|
||
| Time: 12:47 EST/17:47 GMT | News Source: PC World | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
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. Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:23:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 7/5/2009 2:42:19 PM |
|
If SJVN (Linux fanatic) says something bad about Microsoft, you have to check it out 10x over with other sources. If he says something nice about Linux ... wait. Thats all he does.
TradeElect "... runs on HP ProLiant Servers and Microsoft .Net and SQL Server 2000 systems, and within a Cisco network architecture." "An LSE spokesperson told Computerworld UK the problem was related to network software, and not the LSE’s key TradElect platform." http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/networks/news/index.cfm?newsid=10912 So ... it was a Cisco problem. One can infer form this article that Network Latency is the key: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6572925.ece As for Chi-X being open source ... "The Chi-X Core Matching Engine is a proprietary system that resides on the Linux operating system." http://www.chi-x.com/AboutUs_Chi-X_core_technology.htm This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Sunday, July 05, 2009 at 14:44. |
| #2 By 9589 (69.140.154.48) at 7/5/2009 3:24:20 PM |
|
This author from the ever shrinking Computer World magazine, simply lied about the performance of the Tradelect system. He stated that it never achieved sub 10 milisecond performance when in fact the LSE, on their own web site, claims 4 milisecond performance and a significant increase in the number of trades that it can perform over the system it replaced from 600 a second to 18,000 per second.
More crap from Computer World . . . |
| #3 By 28801 (71.58.225.185) at 7/5/2009 4:37:55 PM |
| Did I miss something? Did Universities stop offering journalism classes? |
| #4 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 7/5/2009 5:34:23 PM |
|
Rxcall, no Sir, you did not. What you may have missed was that universities actually teach, by example, how to write like this - dead on the party lines they are trying to support.
You see, they no longer care about the truth, or objectivity - no more than they did when they were young. They are now prefessors and so long as their subjects are on message, they don't care how removed from the truth and objectivity the reporting it... so long as their populist message is advanced. |
| #5 By 15406 (99.240.76.72) at 7/5/2009 8:04:26 PM |
|
Heh, I knew the entire AW microbot cadre would be out in force, writhing in agony while throwing arrows of misdirection at the messenger.
Clearly, the London Stock Exchange needed the stability and performance that only Linux can provide. I mean, if it's good enough for 89% of the world's top supercomputers, it's good enough for the LSE. |
| #6 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 7/5/2009 9:44:57 PM |
|
The "message" is a pile of BS. There's not a fact in it.
|
| #7 By 2201 (82.45.132.196) at 7/6/2009 4:07:58 AM |
| Clearly Latch can't comprehend that an article trying to talk up Linux is actually blatantly lying in order to achieve that goal. But then again Latch is always in denial. |
| #8 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/6/2009 7:29:15 AM |
|
#7: Didn't you know it is only Microsoft that lies.
#4: "so long as their populist message is advanced." Wow! That came out of nowhere, and I suspect is entirely incorrect. It's more likely these "reporters" had a few high school creative writing classes and absolutely no secondary journalistic education that enforced the ideals of who, what, when, where, and why. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 7:55:14 AM |
| Please, microbots one & all, point out the "lies". Please do, because bitching & moaning about "bad journalism" (which seems to be an ActiveWin code-word that means "anti-Microsoft story") is pretty lame. If the network was the problem, as parkkker says, then why didn't they just replace that and move on? MS was very closely involved in this, and even they couldn't get it to work. Doesn't the NYSE also run on Linux? Yep, nobody uses Linux. |
| #10 By 89249 (64.207.240.90) at 7/6/2009 8:39:05 AM |
|
If only I could blame the Operating System for every one of my crashes or transactions lag events...
They are on SQL 2000. It is a completely custom built system. There are so many possible choke points that have absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft's Operating system I have no idea how this article was published. Frankly if you wanted to make this an anti-MS article just focusing on the fact that the software was designed in a joint venture with MS... the code was, in part at least, written by MS techs. And Latch, Linux is finally showing promise in market segment. Congrats. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 7/6/2009 8:47:10 AM |
|
I'm sorry Latch. Forgive me for pointing out that the author didn't buttress a single statement with any FACTS. Pulling on your vast knowledge, can you tell me exactly what caused the LSE outage? Was it OS? Was it Database? Was it Network, Was it Software? Was it technician error? Did somebody trip over a plug?
I currently work in data warehousing for a company that uses Oracle on Unix and I can tell you for a fact that most performance problems we experience are due to inadequate database tuning. The fact that the LSE was using a 10 year old database tells you all you need to know about their IT department. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 9:10:15 AM |
|
#10: Don't congratulate me as I have nothing to do with the rise of Linux. However, if Linux succeeds then we all win as MS will have to work to actually compete.
#11: I don't know what exactly caused the problem, however it doesn't make sense to punt the entire solution if it was the simple matter of a bad component. Plus, MS was heavily involved in this so you can't blame it on contractors. Lastly, MS used this case on their Get The FUD site as an example of the stability & performance of Windows. Now that it's gone to shit, they can't then start saying "Well, it's got nothing to do with Windows." MS gets the credit if the thing works and they get the shaft if it fails -- which it did. I currently work in data warehousing for a company that uses Oracle on Unix and I can tell you for a fact that most performance problems we experience are due to inadequate database tuning. And when it hiccups, do you guys throw everything out and start new? Why not? Oh right, because that wouldn't make any sense unless the entire thing was a big steaming pile. The fact that the LSE was using a 10 year old database tells you all you need to know about their IT department. Oh please. DB technology hasn't grown exponentially in the past couple of years, so a top-end DB from 2000 isn't as bad as you try to make it seem. Plus, the project started in 2005 when SQL 2000 was only a few years old. They used SQL 2000 on MS's recommendation. MS was deeply involved in this rollout. It would be highly embarrassing for MS to lose this one to Linux, so you know they did everything they could to make it work. They couldn't. The crux of the biscuit is that when you need performance and stability for real work in business, Linux is the way to go. Windows has its place in the mass market, but you don't trust it for the heavy lifting. |
| #13 By 16797 (65.95.11.22) at 7/6/2009 9:21:37 AM |
|
#9 Actually, linked article points to another, where they say that the problem was with "network software," so it could be anything really.
Where exactlly do they say that Windows there is going to be replaced with Linux? Looks to me that this is simply cost cutting.. http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/59A7846C896BEA95CC2575E5007D8F33 "New CEO Xavier Rolet, who replaced Furse as CEO last month, is reviewing costs and cutting jobs. Some 120 roles will be done away with in London this week. .. It experienced serious problems with electronic trading last September, when network software problems took TradElect offline for a potentially devastating seven hours. " |
| #14 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 7/6/2009 9:55:42 AM |
|
So we're all "microbots" eh, Latch?
So anyone using part of Microsoft's stack is simply a bot? Where do you get the kind of nerve it takes to comment from such a position? Oh wait... we don't know who you are, because you hide behind a log in ID and refuse to hold out any of your own work as any kind of example upon which you base anything. You see folks, guys like Latch are in my opinion, the worst kind of cowards. They snipe and work to marginalize anyone not spewing their party's line. They troll community sites and are often paid to do so - though they will never admit it - no surprise there... they are after all, cowards... gutless little people. and for this record... the project "started" in 2000 and they used MS SQL 2000? I'm calling BS right there (as far as Microsoft having much to do with this). They'd have moved to MS SQL 2005 immediately and anyone here on this site close to any running enterprise understands the orders of magnitude to the positive SQL 2005 represents over 2000. The TPMc numbers were through the roof with SQL2K5. It trounced Oracle 10g and 9i. I run all three for customers and I can tell you with a dead certainty, the MS SQL Server is def up to any enterprise task I have seen - from DoD personnel database transactions in the millions, to CC transaction processing in the hundreds of millions, it handles the work extremely well. I would not focus on the DB as the source of the trouble with LSE, when it was in fact, network equipment software errors relating to new interconnects which required the re-start of the PVC's (which they failed to do). The "network" SW in error, or reported to be in error, was assumed to have reported the human failure to not re-start the virtual channels feeding new network hardware. Remember, generalizations and marginalization attempts are the coward's most commonly used tools. They never take the field in any other recognizable form. Populist hacks have been use these tools for years - to tear down people who actually do something in life. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 10:24:25 AM |
|
#14: So we're all "microbots" eh, Latch?
Not everyone. Just you and parkkker, mainly. And please stop talking like you represent everyone else here. You don't. So anyone using part of Microsoft's stack is simply a bot? Did I say that? I don't remember saying that. I use MS software every day. Am I a microbot, too? Should I see a doctor about that? To me, a microbot is someone who reflexively defends Microsoft against all charges, using spin, deflection, lies or anything else at their disposal to neuter any anti-Microsoft sentiment. I think that covers you nicely. Parkkker too. That really does not describe anyone else here. Where do you get the kind of nerve it takes to comment from such a position? Oh wait... we don't know who you are, because you hide behind a log in ID and refuse to hold out any of your own work as any kind of example upon which you base anything. So nobody with a pseudonym is allowed to post an opinion? AW may as well close up shop then, eh? What a strange idea. You see folks, guys like Latch are in my opinion, the worst kind of cowards. They snipe and work to marginalize anyone not spewing their party's line. They troll community sites and are often paid to do so - though they will never admit it - no surprise there... they are after all, cowards... gutless little people. You're just cranky because I'm trumpeting an MS loss to Linux and it upsets you greatly. It's hard for you to constantly fluff MS as great and spit on Linux as inferior when reality proves otherwise. So now you're here with this big screed against me but none of that vitriol changes the fact that MS lost to Linux. Again. And it's got nothing to do with populism, socialism or any of your other pet targets. I would also think that the MS engineers and LSE's tech team know a bit more about it than the average AW poster here, so your analysis of the problem and its solution is a desperate attempt to deflect blame away from MS. With Microsoft's history of paid studies, paid "objective" analysts, the corruption of ISO etc etc I would be careful in throwing around charges of astroturfing. While it is easily believable that MS pays people to refute anything anti-MS on the web, I doubt you could say the same thing for Linux, so your accusations are laughable. |
| #16 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 7/6/2009 11:49:29 AM |
|
I think Google should dump Linux. They too had a recent multi-hour outage.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/07/02/google-app-engine-hit-by-outage/ "trumpeting an MS loss to Linux " Actually MS hasn't lost yet. They are thinking about replacing TradeElect. And have yet to decide what to replace it with. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 1:24:12 PM |
| #16: And here you are, right on cue, with your Deflect-O-Matic set to "Google". I'm surprised the knob still turns, considering you've had it set to "Apple" for the past couple of years. |
| #18 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 7/6/2009 2:34:20 PM |
|
One outage for Tradelect and your conclusion is that Microsoft sucks.
Many outages for Google/Linux and your conclusion is that Microsoft sucks. |
| #19 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/6/2009 2:42:11 PM |
|
#18: One major outage and crap performance for Tradelect and the LSE's conclusion is that Microsoft sucks.
Fixed that for you. |
| #20 By 10557 (173.103.68.195) at 7/6/2009 6:56:32 PM |
|
#19: One major outage and crap performance for TradElect and the LSE's conclusion is that Latch still sucks.
Fixed that for you. |
| #21 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at 7/6/2009 9:09:23 PM |
| You guys so funny :) |
| #22 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 7/6/2009 10:49:01 PM |
|
Feels like a fight club in here without the box of chocolates. This post was edited by donpacman on Monday, July 06, 2009 at 22:55. |
| #23 By 17855 (205.167.180.131) at 7/7/2009 7:45:21 AM |
| Honestly the diversity of opinion and points of view is what I find most interesting about this forum. If everyone had the same likes and dislikes this would be a very boring world. |
| #24 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 7/7/2009 3:02:46 PM |
|
Latchbot: ____________________ and the conclusion is that Microsoft sucks.
|
| #25 By 9589 (64.119.129.237) at 7/7/2009 10:54:07 PM |
|
My bet is that the LSE is thinking of moving to something other than TradElect because they have wrung out all of the performance including reduced latency and number of trades per second that the present system will allow. The project is a stellar success as they not only achieved sub 10 millisecond latency, but less than 4 millisecond latency and went from 600 trades per second to over 18000 trades per second.
Nevertheless, there are a number of technologies that have been introduced since this project began in 2000 and I am sure the LSE wants to take advantage of them. With a fresh slate, they can do that. Regarding what OS, DB, and networking vendor may be used in the future, we are not given that in any article that I have read including the ones available on the LSE's web site. So, again, the author is just talking through his "fourth point of contact" to say differently. The LSE has done a remarkable job with this project and it is a shame that it was marred by this unfortunate incident that seems to be network related following an upgrade that occured over the weekend and was not or could not be tested before market open on that Monday. What we do know is that after the upgrade the LSE was able to lower the latency to the present sub 4 millisecond time. One thing that is not stated in all of this is the use of multiple redundant and geographically distant data centers. After 9/11 here in the US, the OCC demanded that of all US national banks. Had the LSE adopted what our OCC demanded, this incident may never have happened or could have been rectified in short order. It would be great to work on this future TradElect system. I know most here on this site would love to roll up our sleeves and get busy on it. Are you listening LSE? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 167 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:23:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
