Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

A technical question for a change

0 helpful
49 replies

by Member 25348569

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

OK. I know it doesn't belong here but I'm not expecting a real solution anyway..

I'm the storage Manager, here, and so responsible for our SAN and backup systems. We're just starting a project to replace the SAN and backup and we've chose - and paid for - the replacement kit.

However, I have just been handed a totally unassociated small project (I'm the technical lead) for which one of the deliverables strikes me as being both unethical and stupid and I'm interested in responses. Just agree with me and I'll feel better!

I have to devise a backup strategy whereby any files deleted within the last two months may be easily restored, selected files are retained for years and must be easily restorable and the remaining non-critical files deleted over six months ago cannot be got back under any circumstances. All of that is easy and is, in fact, what I do anyway.

What they also want is for non-critical files deleted between two and six months ago to be recoverable at a cost greater than ?500 per request so that they can use this whip the users into a better data management mind-set. We can only make an internal charge of ?25 per hour for operator time. How on Earth can I do this? Send tapes to the Seychelles and fly out and pick them up myself?

Gah! X-(

I believe that the strategy was originally proposed by GWB but I can't get this confirmed.

49 replies

by jaqui

tell the ones that want this implemented that you can only implement the extreme rate if you get to pocket all of the 475 pounds they are ripping the clients off. and you need their answer in writing, that they will pay you the full amount they are stealing from customers.

]:)

then you got them over a barrel, they admitted in writing that they are crooks. ]:)

by tig2

I suppose that they have a right to charge the end user whatever they like for restoration services. The question is whether they will consistantly charge ALL users this fee or if more Senior people will be charged less (or not at all).

Either way, the question that I have is if you personally are being asked to lie. If that is indeed the case, I would refuse. We may refer to them as "stupid users" but many of them are smarter than we think. You give up trust one time and it will haunt you forever.

If the goal is to retrain end users in data management, the best way to go about that is define and communicate a policy and define a consequence if policy is not followed. In other words, user training is not your problem. This solution not only removes the problem from your plate but sets it neatly in the lap of your Policy Analyst (or whomever your company uses to create and communicate policy).

by Member 25348569

This is all in-house. Were it for a customer then it would be relatively easy to deal with.

What I actually have to do is to make restore of some files much more expensive but still doable if the business case will swallow the cost or if HR want them, say, for disciplinary stuff. However they won't lie about the differential costs so I have to produce, basically, a strategy that lies for them.

It only appeared in my inbox late today so I haven't had a reply yet whether it is just a whim by those policy analysts suggested to promote user discipline or if - like the six month delete - it is mandated by our data policy's compliance with various UK data acts.

I suspect that it [b]is[/b] just for "user enforcement".

I'll know more when I get replies from my "first thoughts" broadside. Luckily, I went back and edited out all of the swear words before I hit [send]. I was almost reasonable in my objections. Not like me - it must be shock!

by tig2

Does management want to differentiate on rationale for the request? For instance, would fulfilling an HR request for disciplinary reasons be charged a lesser sum than an end user request to have a non critical file restored?

And if this is the case, who in management is willing to define the criteria for that differentiation?

Another odd thought- I know that the UK is implementing a variety of data and security initiatives and while I am not particularly up to date on all of them, I can't think of an audit point that would require that it be "more difficult" to retrieve non-critical data within the retention window. What I HAVE seen is initiatives such as this proposed to provide an additional or augmented revenue stream to fund compliance activities.

If you discover that it IS an effort to improve end user compliance, I would suggest that it will inevitably back-fire as end users scramble to "hide" non-critical data outside of the six month scrub window either through alternative storage (thus creating a new problem and potential risk) or through re-definition of criticality. A better and more successful path to increasing end user compliance is to communicate policy and consequences for failure to manage to the policy.

Can you tell that I have played in this sandbox once or twice?

What I have found to be successful was to shift the issue to a slightly different light- it became "us" (the company) against "them" (the political policy makers). I basically communicated a personal opinion that we were being held to new rules because government felt that we needed to be hand held. We (the company) set out to prove "them" wrong. Actually got to be kinda fun.

Good luck with this. Let me know how it goes on.

by x-marcap

If you have to get addition storage for your (clariion, netapp, symmetrix,hitachi,etc. raid) you can easily justify the 500... Make it a policy to mount it on new storage, so it cannot mess up any existing data, and you are home free...

by firstpeter

Really there's no ethics issue there at all - just stupid business practice. Effectively a business is saying "I want you to increase cost so we can justify not doing something." Instead of, say, putting out a policy that says "We will not do this."

Can you imagine being the CIO and having to explain to the CEO that you decided to actually increase costs unnecessarily because you didn't want to ask him/her to help enforce the policy that says we don't do that?

There are really two decision points here that have to be looked at. The first is "does the benefit outweigh the cost?" If the cost is, say $50/recovery and the benefit is a savings of $500 then absolutely.

But that in-and-of-itself shouldn't be enough to justify the recovery. The second decision point is "does it make sense to do that?" This one is the one I've seen overlooked so many times it scares me. Just because I CAN make a dollar doesn't mean it's wise for me to do it.

I run a consulting business. I could sell furniture on the side and make a buck here and there, but that's taking time away from my core business where my return is much greater. Maybe I could spend 5 hours making $50 on furniture when I could have used that 5 hours to drum up 20 sales leads, netting me one sale of $300/month recurring profit.

So, just because I can cost-effectively (direct cost) recover that file maybe I don't want to because it will take my folks away from mapping out the future strategies - which are more valuable than the $500 benefit we'll get. Maybe I don't want to because if I have one request it's justified, but when I have five requests it's not. Maybe I don't want to because it will set a precedent I don't want to set.

I don't see anything unethical in their request. Stupid, yes, but not unethical.

by Member 25348569

Jacqui, it's all internal stuff. The cost isn't a real one for anyone except me and the team.

adunlap, unfortunately, I'm in the middle of setting up a hands-free tape library-based system sited at our DR site with near-instant recall-anything. All the tapes stay in a 40TB library and it spits out copies to come back to HQ for safekeeping. At least I was until this pack of idiots made their proposals. The really aggravating thing is that I'm three months into our "new SAN, new backup" project and everything has been purchased!

by tig2

The first thing I learned about project management (and I have a feeling that I am just telling you what you already know) was how to explain to the customer what the impact of a change request will be on the ability to deliver, the costs, and the quality of a project.

Try this as it may provide you with a functional dodge...

Explain that "of course you can implement this concept, but as the request is unfunded and does not fit the functional requirements, it will only be considered as it's own project at the completion of the current project". Follow through and price appropriately. End useres will ask for the darndest things and as the SME, you need to help them understand the negative impacts of not doing it your way. (Ok, I worded that last badly. But you get my meaning)

When value can be assessed for an activity, my expereince has been that the activity gets re-evaluated. Business rarely wants to spend additional dollars when they can save a few.

It sounds like you are migrating to a virtual tape set-up. If that is the case, you will not easily validate increasing the cost on restoring individual files. To my knowledge, there isn't anything that would be a compliance management point in that scenario. Management, in my opinion, should be dancing with glee that you have engineered a secure yet safe and agile solution.

by Member 25348569

The "Operational Change Authorisation" request landed in my in-tray (and that or all of the Infrastructure Team) for technical assessment just around 4pm. I'd heard runours that the data Management Policy Team were going to request it but I'd really assumed that people were trying to wind me up as it seemed so stupid!

It is, however, an official request and I guess I'm just going to have to recruit some allies up the IT management chain because I seriously can't think of a way to actually do it!

When I hear more, I'll let you know. Your insights could be useful.

by deepsand

Setting aside all of the issues that are matters of policy, and therefore not under your control, this boils down to a billing question.

The best solution would, of course, be to change internal billing practices so that factors other than operator time were included. Absent such change, the problem then becomes one of how to effect billing subject to a specified minimum total charge.

In order to properly address this question, we need to know the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of the billing system as it now exists.

For example, how are the data required for billing acquired? Who has access to such? How is a bill generated? Who generates it? What input is required for such? What, if any, steps are taken to verify the completeness and accuracy of bills? How is the bill presented to the billed party? What, if any, post-billing auditing occurs? Who performs such audits?

by rob mekel

It's more a managing/management problem.

Special if you look in to it, as Dawg does, as being a cost- or profit-centre. Then there is the issue if it will be an external service that your department will deliver to whom ever.

You can, however, go for the master setup and over do all the cost that you can think of. Even to the extend of putting in an second NAS/SAN/Mirrored/whatever secured system with its backup and of course at a co-location as you wanna be sure that you can deliver all the time.

I know it's a bit overdone, but from there you can explain why you think it is ridicule to do so. And make damn sure that ALL know that only if they want you to exaggerate it can be done.
[i]and even then may be hardly.
Unless there are only a few users. Isn't this a key issue: [b] Is it for 1 or 10.000 users [/b] [/i]

Rob

[i]edited for format[/i]

by Member 25348569

But the data will also come into the influence of the Freedom of Information Act and other such goodies so the great British public might get in on the act.

The real issue - to reiterate - is that we're halfway through delivering a really good system and they want it artificially crippled because they set policy guidelines without looking outside of their own heads.

by av .

Backup retention is a tough subject today. In the US, you have to be compliant according to laws like Sarbanes-Oxley or SOX.

I work for a law firm and we have a policy that states that we retain our backups for 60 days. I do full backups everynight of our system. After 60 days, I retain just the Friday tapes which are backed up and verified.

The tapes are easily restorable, but I'm really not sure if the government would consider it to be as near-line restorable as a hot spare or offsite backup. The lawyers at my firm think this is an acceptable policy. I think maybe it wouldn't be if the government pursued the letter of the law.

We have a document management system, Interwoven, that makes archiving easy. You can archive anything saved in the system to a location that you specify. It goes by document types. It doesn't sound like you have that though.

Anytime your plan depends on users to do something, forget about it. You need to work around them.

I can't think of any way to just save the documents that are important and get rid of the rest that doesn't involve buying a new piece of software or getting the users to be more disciplined.

I think you should find out exactly how strict the regulations you need to comply with are. Then, develop a policy that your management endorses. This is very important because, today, you can be held accountable for wrong decisions.

If your company doesn't want to spend money, save your backup tapes older than 60 days at an offsite storage place in a climate controlled vault in their entirety or consider online backups to a remote server location.

by Member 25348569

At the moment we use Tivoli Storage Manager and it allows me to set data retention strategies as granular as I wish but what it also does - and well - is to facilitate restores of any of these files that are available. We are replacing TSM with another product but the particular choice was made because it would make restore even easier!

What the Policy makers to want is for the recovery of older files to be artificially much more costly so that - I believe - they can use the associated cost to force a culture of user data management. Not that we do inter-departmental billing, anyway.

I don't think that the particular "two month = money" rule is to comply with regulations as I'm up to speed with the regs already and this is just stupid.

It's only just started so I will get some more information - I hope! - in the coming week.

by sleepin'dawg

Do you operate under "Cost Centres" or "Profit Centres". Each has its pros and cons but once you have determined which method is being applied, you should be able to have a clearer view of how to formulate a strategy. I would bet your working to a Cost Centre scenario since you are a government institution and they supposedly aren't supposed to make profits. Based on that, draw up a schedule of costs for the additional software, hardware and additional people required to implement this. Be indulgent with the figures. Once you have that in hand, you can determine an ROI in terms of increased/decreased functionality as well as a cost/benefit study and you will probably find nobody will want to absorb this out of their budgets. Remember, bullschit baffles brains; make it look expensive and enthusiasm for this will quickly wane.

If you were in industry, it would be an entirely different matter altogether; unless you can see a positive cost/benefit analysis this sort of thing goes on the wish list or dies on the vine.

Government agencies seem to take a cost is no object sort of approach, so you will have to make the numbers too horrible to conceive of an acceptable excuse for proceeding. My .02P worth anyway.

BTW you fire your analysis back at the source that originated it and cc and bcc all and sundry. If you do it right, it will soon prove an embarassment to whoever originated it.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by jardinier

Not that I can answer the question of course, but it appears to be about ethics and internal politics and is not directly a technical question at all.

by Member 25348569

We had a Team meeting, got the senior IT management properly involved and unanimously declared the whole thing to be technically unimplementable. It was last seen heading back up the policy committee chain with its tail between its legs...

Our premise was that if someone had to lie to the users to force them into better data management habits then it should be those who wished to implement the policy. We weren't going to lie for them.

It also helped that I was able to show that the number of simple restore requests for files deleted within the last six months - the current cutoff - was damn small so the users were pretty careful anyway. The whole concept was built on a false assumption.

It may well come back. Before we killed it, they fine-tuned it according to some arcane internal accounting rule - "After a backup has been retained for 2 months restoration from backup shall cost ?479 (a maximum of ?25 per hour technician time is chargeable)".

Thanks again for your input, everyone. If anyone should ever happen to think of a mechanism to actually implement the requirement - don't tell me and DON'T post it in case anyone from the Operations Board reads TR!

Neil :D

by tig2

Neil, in the unlikely event that this silliness raises its head again, stay with the same approach. From what you are saying, they want you to communicate a chargable fee that you do NOT charge. Make sure that you are noisy about that- you cannot, with the system that you are implementing, validate the fee.

Dawg is right- If you can disasterise the actual costs, re-thinking will generally occur. In the event that re-thinking doesn't occur, make sure that the disasterised numbers will pay for a necessary enhancement.

Oh. And you might want to remind senior management that the goal behind effective back up and recovery strategy is to make restoration of electronic data inexpensive and do-able... you know, like being able to restore business critical functionality instantly in the event of emergency.

And if you ever need it, I have a couple of studies on impact to the user community when out of balance fee structures are implemented to force a behaivior. They include the list of risks that are introduced and the policy groups that are generally called on to mitigate those risks. The risk mitigation element may well help to kill this silliness.

by maxwell edison

....a whole concept is built on a false assumption, but people try to force a "solution" anyway?

How many times have I said that?

by tig2

I wish I could count all of the times a valid project ended up in the rubbish because some id10t with nothing better to do and no actual knowledge adds a requirement set that is patently ridiculous and un-implementable. Next thing that happens is that the project is re-scoped to include BS and then funding is pulled or reduced because the layer of complexity introduced by the BS kills the ROI.

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

by Member 25348569

That's the real issue! We don't do internal recharging for IT services so this request for ?479 cost for a restore is totally artificial, "virtual" costing to permit HR or whoever to say "NO" when a user requests a restore. The fact that such a restore takes no more than five minutes tekkie time and there are not that many anyway seems to have escaped their notice.

One problem is that the woman who heads up this committee looks very much like Yoda and - in all honesty - I am frightened that she might take after me with a light sabre.

Neil :D

by rob mekel

For the record: I agree with you. :) [i]does it make you feel better?[/i]
Special the part "to the Seychelles and fly out" if you need a hand ... I will be glad to help you :) [i]that is if your company pays for it, do you still feel better? [/i] :D ;)

Rob

[i]edited for format[/i]

by maxwell edison

.....referring more to other "hot global" issues (and many domestic issues as well.)

But I have a sneaking suspicion that Neil understood exactly what I was referring to.

by maxwell edison

The proposed "cures" for man-caused global warming is a "solution" which was/is built on a false assumption. (In this case "false" is extrapolated from inconclusive.)

Many who oppose the war in Iraq base their posturing on the "false assumption" that the ONLY reason was WMDs, and/or it has nothing to do with the "bigger picture" of dealing with terrorism, and/or it was launched as a direct retaliation to 9-11. (How many times have I argued against those "false assumptions?)

By the way, can you use "factopinguess" in your argument?

by Member 25348569

My immediate response, yesterday:

Considering that our team's entire philosophy is to make anything that we do easy, reliable and cheap, firstly I have to say that I consider the idea of making something artificially expensive as a deterrent to be more than a little unethical. It's certainly totally unprofessional. It is also worth adding, also, that all backup systems are designed with the specific goals of making data retention and restore easy, reliable and cheap so we are really going to have to go out of our way to make things difficult.

The stated reasoning behind this particular deliverable in the OCA is to "prevent large volumes of requests for restoration of deleted files by only making a back-up available for 2 months." The "backup" portion of the SAN Project is to specifically make backup and restoration require the minimum of user effort. This is an obvious paradox. Especially as the "requirement" is predicated on the factopinguess that there are "excessive user requests".

It's such a good word that I couldn't resist. I've sent a fee of a pound to GG's Paypal account as she said she was UK licencee.

Neil :D

I don't respond to inflamatory digs on a Friday either on GW, GWB, TB or the ME. Take yourself off!

by x-marcap

We are examining an additional 60 TB to get out to 2 weeks of incrementals... The space goes faster than you'd ever believe.

by maxwell edison

You're no fun, Neil!

By the way, is "GWB" just an extension of "GW", but with the Bulls*** word added to it?

by maxwell edison

As being the creator of "factopinguess", and considering that it was done on the [b]WORLD[/b]-Wide Web, there is no national licensee, but rather only the world-wide consortium, as defined by me, in the factopinguess thread.

If you sent a "royalty payment" to GG, then she needs to either send it to our factopinguess corporate office, or offer to BUY ME dinner AND the transportation costs to get there, of course.

By the way, I must update my list of people who will be partaking in the royalties. One of them is you, Neil. In fact, I might consider giving you a double-share since you're using it so enthusiastically

by sleepin'dawg

You cannot lie in a situation such as this and if you got caught worse things than losing your credibility could ensue. What I was suggesting was to create a [b][i]worst case scenario[/i][/b] using very real numbers. The originator of this should have a best case scenario on hand to counter balance your position and if he doesn't then it's his tough luck.

Keep in mind these things:
(1): Noah built the ark all by himself and embarked all the living creature in the world two by two.
The Titanic was constructed by many and it didn't survive its maiden voyage
(2): The camel is a horse designed by a committee.
(3): Always tell the truth but this doesn't mean you have to present the whole truth.

It is up to the originator of the proposal to present his arguements in favour of the proposal. You as the ultimate implementer of the proposal have to present a valid worst case scenario, otherwise you will not be doing your job properly.

Good managers will want to hear both sides of an issue and if you are in serious doubt about the feasibility of the proposal then it is endemic upon you and in your best interests to present the most forceful worst case scenario that you are capable of. This is [i][b]not unethical[/b][/i] and it should be as honest as you can make it, to the best of your knowledge.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by cactus pete

This can be accomplished with your main backups going to backup disk arrays, while removeing backups of THOSE sets that go to tape.

fastest, surest thing I cant think of...

Do you have a secondary site with a highspeed connection between?

by Member 25348569

Our DR site's SAN will be on the same fabric as our HQ SAN with a 2Gbps FC over IP connection. At the DR site we will have a tape library with easily enough capacity for backups to fulfil our statutory requirements for FOI, whatever. All backups will be done at the DR site. The kit has been delivered and we're mid-install! Then they dump on us.

That's the real killer! We have this super SAN/backup project which will fulfil our every need - except the requirement to be deliberately stupid.

We don't [b]have[/b] to send tapes offsite as we have enough capacity in the library and on the new SAN for years. The plan was to have a copy set of tapes delivered to HQ for a disaster at the Disaster Recovery site.

The ruling applies to ALL data - email, office files, the lot - so we have to apply this differential treatment to our entire backup set.

by cactus pete

If the powers that be are going to attempt to charge extra money for people going overboard on requests for things, then apply the same rate back to those powers - charge them for the change in scope!

by tig2

God forbid that your answer to that question is yes.

I just thought of how you validate the required cost. The only problem is that no charge levied on the end user will cover the cost of the solution.

One of my favourite approaches to idiot requirements is to do a VERY deep dive cost impact analysis. What I think I am hearing you say is that you are in the middle of implementing a system that will last for years IF THE REQUIREMENTS DO NOT CHANGE. If the requirements change at this point, the system may be insufficient to accomodate them or the system will prematurely age. I also hear you saying is that there is factopinguess that the additional requirement is actually necessary.

If I have this correct, the only functional approach would be to scrap the plan you are in the midst of implementing and begin the process again- seek funding, engage an appropriate vendor, provide operational training, implement the new system while maintaining the existing so as to avoid outage... in other words, re-launch the entire project. And while you MIGHT realise some minor cost savings, due to ability to recycle some of the new (your current implementation) solution, that savings will not be a significant value.

For some reason this scenario reminds me of the first virtualised storage system I implemented. We proved a 90 day full return on investment but I spent a good 4 months explaining that value to senior leadership. If someone doesn't understand the value of $50M in cost avoidance, they have no business being in a position to make those decisions!

Someone had to "sanity check" your project and authorise the expenditure. I think that person would become an instant ally in this- after all, implementing this (idiotic) requirement will hit THEIR bottom line in terms of waste.

Speaking of... do you have a group that manages Waste Management from the standpoint of unnecessary cost impact? Can you have a conversation with them?

My heart goes out to you. I shall open a bottle of elderly single malt and think of you!

by Member 25348569

The idiots that proposed this have already broadcast details and, I reckon, are committed to it. It may be killable but it's not going to be easy and I'll neeed to recruit a Director or two. It's the very first time in all my years in IT that I've specifically been asked to propose and expensive, inefficient solution and I really don't like it.

What they can't have taken on board is that any solution I propose - and I really can't think of one yet - will have to be paid for in part whether we restore anything or not. That's the only thing that might put a stop to it.

by tig2

Neil;

I can think of some solutioning for this but the hard reality is that you will potentially end up scrapping at least part of the system you are implementing.

Play the $$$ card. If you are required to scrap elements of the solution currently being implemented, it will cost some big money. It sounds to me as if the solution you are working on won't manage to the new demands. Is this accurate? If so, that is your cost analysis. If, however the solution you are currently implementing CAN accomodate this silliness, consider scaling up.

And I think that the group proposing this idiocy should be handed the bill- in advance.

Let me know if I can help.

by sleepin'dawg

In your [b][i] worst case scenario presentation[/b][/i] be sure to include all the costs to be incurred in delaying the current implementation you are working on, not only the costs incurred by being forced to scrap any portion of what has been done so far. After you hit them with that,[b]then[/b] hit them with the new additional costs and provide them with a combined total. This has to include the cost of all the man hours that will have been wasted as well as the time wasted. If the system is required to be online within a certain timeframe then any delay more than a day or two will not be looked upon favourably. But then I'm talking about business practices not government practices.

Your main problem is you are ethical and have a concience in a concienceless environment. Another illustration of those who can, do; those who can't teach or administrate.

[b][i]When in danger or in doubt, run in cicles scream and shout;
When the battle is over and done, hoist the signal up,"Well Done."[/i][/b]

That's SOP for government.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by tig2

IS there an impact to your current implementation? DO you have to add additional storage, bandwidth, etc in order to accomodate the requirement?

I ask only because I was re-reading points in this thread and discovered in your little known accounting rule that restores would cost a specific dollar figure.

If you are not impacted by additional needs, take that figure and add your operator time to it. Communicate that the figure was a set figure straight out of accounting. Do not make an effort to "justify" the cost- if it doesn't impact your implementation, it doesn't.

If it does, my last comment applies, as well as Dawg's comments.

by Member 25348569

The managers are asking me to engineer the system specifically to increase the cost of a data restore when it is completely unnecesary to meet any formal data management rules. This "cost" will be published to the workforce. They are involving me in a fabrication - a lie. That is unethical.

The current level of requests for restores is quite low and I have no reason to believe it would increase if everybody just shut uop and left everything the way it is now - perfectly in compliance with published policy.

by firstpeter

But it's not a fabrication - it's legitimate. When all is said and done there is no lie involved in telling someone it costs $500/restore - that's actually the fact. There's no lie in creating the system that way - that's what has been scoped out, plain and simple.

Just because something is completely unnecessary to meet formal data rules and increasing cost is the drive behind it doesn't make it unethical - it just makes it stupid from a business perspective.

Ultimately the root reason is a good one - they want to prevent folks from getting complacent and using file restores instead of managing their data. There are a number of legitimate ways to solve that, including making it cost-prohibitive. That's not the best way, but it's legitimate.

Think of it this way. If your Sales department asks you for a laptop to improve their efficiency and you say "you'll have to fork over $2,500 for a Sony Vaio from your budget for one and write a business case to cover it" when you know a $600 Gateway low-end will suffice, is that unethical? No - it's a business decision. Maybe a STUPID one, but one nonetheless.

by gadgetgirl

Because.....

1. Fact - There is no money in my Paypal account.

I don't have a Paypal account.

2. Opinion - It is his [i]opinion[/i] that I'm UK licencee - I have never promoted myself as such. I have been legally trained, and am aware of the licencing laws - as stated by Max, this is WORLD WIDE

3. Guess - he's guessing that I wouldn't have found out this [b]BLATANT LIE[/b] when I came back after the weekend.

Wrong.

So, Neil, I think you owe Max. Not only do you have to pay for his travel over here, you have to take him to dinner too.

(Max, I don't hold out too much hope for you.......NeilB STANDS PEOPLE UP!!!)

(Thanks for the intro Max, it's still working!!!)

:p

GG

by Member 25348569

is to re-configure the new backup system that we are getting in a manner that I do not yet know because I haven't done the courses yet.

We don't need to add anything to the system except a level of complexity and external tape vaulting services.

The principle is simple - instead of having all backups in the library at our DR site with copies at HQ, we have to extract all tapes as they reach the 2m point and courier them to a vaulting service. We have to remove copy tapes from HQ at the 2m point and courier them to another vaulting service for safety (it would be too cheap, otherwise).

At six months, both sets need to be returned to our DR site and reloaded into the library for re-use. All of this has to be paid for whether anyone requests a restore or not and this makes the calculation of this element of the "unit restore" a variable cost. We can easily cost the courier and other charges for retrieving, reloading and then the unload and the return to vault and add in the time to organise the tape movement and actual restore.

We have a further issue with our existing backup system which performs a "perpetual incremental". We will be running this system in parallel until Christmas, at least. There is no way that I can yet think of to fulfil the requested strategy.

Happy days!

by rob mekel

They already get what they are asking for at low cost but want a more expansive one to murmur around for a new policy they come up with and ... don't want to look foolish as this system is already in place by enlighted tech's who did for see such a system is needed before the high ranks had even the thought of putting in a rule. :D That is typical for management with no understanding of ICT.

It even say's a lot of how management has read the project plan of the system that you're delivering right now ?:| Makes you wonder what the hell they are doing with their time needed to read that project plan. :(

May be, and just may be (cause I don't know how politically strong your department stands in your company) it is a good idea for putting the point of views right to the whole company, including the stake AND share-holders, by giving them an insight on how management are doing their jobs regarding ICT :)
It's a tricky one and can back fire at your department. :( (What is minor if it happens but you know what is being said of who doesn't take a risk/chance/opportunity ... :) )

Rob

[i]edited for format[/i]

by sleepin'dawg

If it is anything like Canadian government institutions, you have chosen job security over the potential efficiency and logic of industry. To those of us outside government, we are too often left to wonder about why government does things the way that they do because so much of what they do, is so needlessly redundant.

Some time ago I was in a position of being able to contrast the workings of a government broadcasting facility with the workings of a private facility, in the areas of TV, satellite and radio broadcasting. The most noticeable thing, to my eyes, was that the the private facility was accomplishing the very same things that the government facility was achieving but was doing it with one third of the personnel that the government facility was using. And the private facility was actually doing a better job.

At various times of the day the government facility was experiencing moments of "dead air" for as much as ninety seconds at a time. The private facility encountered this problem maybe once a month and seldom for longer than thirty seconds at a time. The government facilities were using state of the art equipment but the private facility made do with properly serviced equipment of several years vintage. It was the government facility that first embarked on the new HDTV standard; the private facility worked in the background debugging the system before they brought it online and integrated it into their regular broadcasts. Prior to that, a similar thing transpired with FM radio broadcasts.

If I had to choose which venue to work in, I think I would choose the private one because I think it would be the more challenging one. It would be the more profitable one too, because the techs at the private facility were better paid than the government one; they just didn't have quite the same level of job security.

This is changing however, as even government is getting into the habit of hiring people on contracts rather than straight employment. Fewer benefits but more take home money. Hang in long enough and maybe they will make you permanent and then you'll be right back where you started from.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

This discussion is closed to new replies.