POL00028366
POL00028366
Electronic memo
To Graham Shervington/POCL/POSTOFFICEQ@:
cc Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE@..
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Andrew Radka/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Date 10/08/99 13:33
Subject Fwd: System Freezes &
Graham
Can you plse get me some data on our ECCO etc experience as a matter of urgency?
Andy
To Andrew Radka/POCL/POSTOFFICE@,_
ce Chris French@MAILHUB, Ruth Holleran/POCL/POSTOFFICE@
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy ce
From Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Date 10/08/99 12:31
Subject System Freezes
Andy,
As you probably know, one of the potential High severity acceptance incidents still outstanding
relates to the number of times that the system freezes and has to be re-booted before it can be
used again.
Pathway seem to be preparing a line on this (for Peter Copping) that the problem is only at the
level that we should have expected from a computer-based system, and is in line with industry
norms. We need to be in a position to refute this. Chris French is following up the line of
external benchmarking. In parallel, it would help our case if we could show that we do not have
this level of incident with our existing systems.
Are there performance stats, or help desk analyses available for ECCO+ and/or ALPS that
would show up the level of freezes and re-boots for our existing systems?
To be included in our inputs to Peter Copping, stats would be needed by mid day on Thursday
at the latest. Any info after that would be useful as briefing for Dave Miller in the meeting with
Copping scheduled for next Monday.
Keith
POL00028366
POL00028366
4.9 AUG 1283" 837
Electronic memo
To Andrew Radka/POCL/POSTOFFICE@:
cc Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE@:
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Graham Shervington/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Date 10/08/99 16:38
Subject Re: Fwd: System Freezes
Andy
Per your request, please find examples of “systems freeze’ calls to the help desk over
the last 3 months re ECCO/ALPS platforms.
Regards
Graham
systemfreeze.xls
To Graham Shervington/POCL/POSTOFFICE@_~
To Graham Shervington/POCL/POSTOFFICE@‘_-
cc Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE@! _
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Andrew Radka/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Date 10/08/99 13:33
Subject Fwd: System Freezes
Graham
Can you plse get me some data on our ECCO etc experience as a matter of urgency?
Andy
To Andrew Radka/POCL/POSTOFFICE@. i
cc Chris French@MAILHUB, Ruth Holleran/POCL/P\ TOFFICEG”
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE
POL00028366
POL00028366
Date 10/08/99 12:31
Subject System Freezes
Andy,
As you probably know, one of the potential High severity acceptance incidents still outstanding
relates to the number of times that the system freezes and has to be re-booted before it can be
used again.
Pathway seem to be preparing a line on this (for Peter Copping) that the problem is only at the
level that we should have expected from a computer-based system, and is in line with industry
norms. We need to be in a position to refute this. Chris French is following up the line of
external benchmarking. In parallel, it would help our case if we could show that we do not have
this level of incident with our existing systems.
Are there performance stats, or help desk analyses available for ECCO+ and/or ALPS that
would show up the level of freezes and ré-boots for our existing systems?
To be included in our inputs to Peter Copping, stats would be needed by mid day on Thursday
at the latest. Any info after that would be useful as briefing for Dave Miller in the meeting with
Copping scheduled for next Monday.
Keith
POL00028366
POL00028366
[systemfreeze.xis
Page 1} ~
A B c
41
2
3_I Ecco
4
5
6 DATE No of Terminals Volume of SW calls
7 Apr-99 6305 393
8 May-99 6305 344
9 Jun-99 6305 305
10
11
12
13 I ALPS/ESNS
14
15 DATE No of Terminals Volume of SW calls
16 Apr-99 4551 348
17 May-99 4551 263
18 Jun-99 4551 303
POL00028366
POL00028366
[systemfreeze.xis Page 2]
D E F
1
2
3
4
5
6 I System Freezes % of calls % occurences per terminal
7 22 5.60 0.35
8 24 6.98 0.38
9 10 3.28 0.16
10
14
12
13
14
15 I System Freezes % of calls % occurences per terminal
16 48 13.79 1.05
17 28 10.65 0.62
18 26 8.58 0.57