This is indeed an interesting problem - we are all dependent on a
centralized service node.
Just got off the phone with GPO 9 am 9/1/09.
I was told they are now up to 50% or PURLs restored but the script is
running very slowly line-by-line since the server (they're updating the
production
FYI...
Patricia A. Duplantis
Librarian (Automation)
Library Technical Services Support Section,
Library Technical Information Services
U.S. Government Printing Office
732 North Capitol Street NW
Mail Stop: IDBS
Washington, DC 20401
Phone: 202-512-2010 ext. 33268
Fax: 202-512-1432
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Jonathan Rochkindrochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Of course, one failure in X (10?) years is fairly good reliability...
depending on how long it takes them to get everything back working 100%. If
it's back by tomorrow, one outage in 10 years pretty good. If it takes a
Roy++
I agree while we might use technology to preserve things, it is only a
tool to help preserve things. It is at best the how, not the which,
what, why, and when.
Edward
Roy Tennant wrote:
I think this episode also illustrates, once again, that preservation is not
about technology at
Duplantis, Patricia A. wrote:
On- and off-site redundant back-up of all critical hardware and systems is and will continue to be performed by GPO.
I don't really understand how this is consistent with:
Though the hardware configuration was restored, GPO has worked continuously, including
GPO knows that many institutions have automated URL checkers
that run against the PURL server. Please be aware that the
PURL restoration process is severely slowed by checkers
repeatedly hitting the PURL server.
Presumably if there are any parties running automated tools which
neglect to
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Duplantis, Patricia A. wrote:
On- and off-site redundant back-up of all critical hardware and
systems is and will continue to be performed by GPO.
I don't really understand how this is consistent with:
Though the hardware configuration was restored, GPO has worked
Voted. Thanks for the heads up, Bess!
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:08:16AM -0400, Bess Sadler wrote:
One of the feature requests we get pretty often with Blacklight is
search term highlighting. The main reason we don't have it yet is
because it's a performance drag. We have attempted to add it
4) Server compromised. Worst case scenario. They need to preserve all
the drives so they can analyze them and turn over information to
police.
This is where written policies and reality often diverge. Getting LE
involved is tantamount to throwing away production equipment making a
bad
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Houghton,Andrewhough...@oclc.org wrote:
...
4) Server compromised. Worst case scenario. They need to preserve all
the drives so they can analyze them and turn over information to
police. They are not going to trust the backup/image since they don't
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Edward M. Corradoecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
Thus I have to believe them that they did not have a compromised
server and instead they had a hardware failure. I have no idea why
they couldn't just restore from backup which would at least gotten
them back to
On Sep 1, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Ross Singer rossfsin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Edward M.
Corradoecorr...@ecorrado.us wrote:
Thus I have to believe them that they did not have a compromised
server and instead they had a hardware failure. I have no idea why
they couldn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
