FUJ00155232
FUJ00155232
From: Sewell Peter (FEL01)[/O=EXCHANGE/OU=ADMINGROUP1/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SEWELLP]
Sent: Tue 12/08/2008 10:48:25 AM (UTC)
To: Jenkins Gareth oi GRO
Ce:
Subject: I RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Gareth
When you say interfere are transactions actually lost when the EOD is run.
I need to talk with you on another subject could you spare some time today please.
Pete
Pete Sewell
Security Operations Manager
Fujitsu Services Royal Mail Group Account
LOVELACE ROAD,
BRACKNELL,
Web http://uk.fujitsu.com
Fujitsu Services Registered in England no 96056,
Registered Office 22 Baker Street,
London W1U 3BW
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are confidential and may be privileged. Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended ot that it is virus free.
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 11 August 2008 15:15
To: Sewell Peter (FELO1)
Ce: Stewart Mike; Peach Mik
Subject: FW: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Pete,
Over the last couple of years we've had a couple of cases where EOD (which runs at 19:00) interferes with transactions
being written at the counter. If this happens, then there is an Event written to the NT event Log.
Given we only have a couple of instances, and a fix is as likely to cause further problems, then we're reluctant to make a
change to Horizon. However if Horizon data is being used in evidence for the prosecution of a Postmaster, it is probably
wise to also check to see if any such events were produced during the period in question. Is this something that can /
should be built into the ARQ process?
Regards
Gareth
FUJ00155232
FUJ00155232
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
ss Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu Services
does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Jenkins Gareth GI
Sent: 11 August 2008 15:11
To: Peach Mik
Cc: Drake Claire; Card Cheryl; Chambers Anne O; Stewart Mike; Budworth John
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Mik,
As discussed, I am still uneasy about this, but I agree that it is probably safer to leave things as they are.
I've discussed this with Mike and I'll mention this to Pete Sewell so that he can ensure that if we are providing
evidence for an ARQ that we also check on relevant events.
Regards
Gareth
Gareth Jenkins
Distinguished Engineer
Applications Architect
Royal Mail Group Account
St Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
This e-mail is only for the use of its intended recipient. Its contents are subject to a duty of confidence and may be privileged. Fujitsu
Services does not guarantee that this e-mail has not been intercepted and amended or that it is virus-free.
From: Peach Mik
Sent: 11 August 2008 14:41
To: Jenkins Gareth GI
Cc: Drake Claire; Card Cheryl; Chambers Anne O; Stewart Mike; Budworth John
Subject: RE: Branch 141832 Craigpark
Gareth,
OK - I understand that you don’t want this to be left un-fixed...
FUJ00155232
FUJ00155232
On the basis of the evidence that we have - there are 35 errors per week ( inside the 7-8pm Wednesday
window) and two in 35*52(weeks) = 1820 are known to have caused a discrepancy.
a) SSC staff spending lots of time monitoring these events for 1-2 per year is simply not cost-effective
b) Fixing the underlying problem of holding the "lock" for too long is feasible - from PC0152376 BUT
c) I would want some assurance that making this change to the live estate, to resolve 2 reported issues,
is NOT going to have a knock-on effect anywhere else....
I know that this is a difficult request - but I don't like changing Horizon at this stage - and I would like to
be convinced that it is necessary, and that we wont make things worse...
Regards
Mik