Skip to main content

Salesforce writes up it's side of the story



Well it's pretty easy to blame your database vendor and assume that errors *just* occur on the system. When you say the cluster crashed, something DID go wrong!


The root cause of the intermittent access was a complex error in the database cluster that was not previously known to us or our database vendor. It surprised us because we had not made any changes to our system. The error just appeared.


and what steps are the folks taking?


s we previously announced to you, we are half way through the roll out of Mirrorforce, our new data center architecture. Contrary to some reports, the full deployment of Mirrorforce, which will happen in Q1, would not have prevented this problem. Mirrorforce is a standby, mirrored, replicated data center. If we lost the West Coast data center because of a major hardware failure, a natural or man-made disaster, or a terrorist attack, the new data center would automatically take over.

We are confident that once fully implemented, Mirrorforce will represent long term value to our customers. But an extremely rare, undocumented software issue is not something that even the most robust systems can prevent 100% of the time. No system has 100% performance, and no software is bug free.


Anyways I know that the DBA's are busy but I'm sure they're also happy to have finally got it heard. Read the rest of the statement here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more