Off topic - Slow batch processing

[Scott Silva]

Glenn Steen spake the following on 4/27/2007 1:42 AM:
> On 27/04/07, Stephen Swaney <steve.swaney at fsl.com> wrote:
>> > I found when I was running up a new MailScanner install on a machine
>> > with
>> > dual cpu's and not much ram, that my MailScanner processes just became
>> > defunct after a while. I could slow the process down by decreasing
>> > things
>> > like no. of children and the like, but the problem was instantly solved
>> > when
>> > I bumped the ram up. (We had some on order).
>> >
>> > Seamus Allan
>> > Network Engineer
>> > Rheel Electronics Ltd
>>
>> This reminds me of a story that is way off topic but some of you might
>> need
>> a laff today.
>>
>> Many years ago I worked for a large NY firm that had a overseas
>> office. The
>> overseas office started having a problems with Sybase servers running
>> slowly. The Sybase experts? were called in and could not resolve the
>> problem. After a little over 30 days! someone noticed that there was very
>> little memory in the systems.
>>
>> A check the data center access records, system reboots and data center
>> cameras showed that a contractor had been systematically removing memory
>> from many systems for LONG time. A check of the contractor's apartment
>> found
>> a lot of memory and other kibbles and bits :(
>>
>> Sometimes it not always a configuration or application problem :)
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Steve
> 
> LOL, thanks Steve... Really needed a good start on the day, and that did
> it:-).
> 
> Reminds me of a not that distant (approx.7 years) incident where we
> took a not-that-new server out of storage, for doing some tests, and
> it just didn't want to boot... Beeped a bit, but never got to begin
> the POST at all...
> Turned out that there wasn't any CPU under the meticulously replaced
> cooler...
> If it had been something nice, one could have understood the act of
> theft, but IIRC it was some P133 or similar, so why anyone would go to
> all the trouble... This was back when it took some tinkering to get at
> the HW, no snap on/off thingies, so the thief had to have been working
> at it for at least 30-40 minutes...
> As far as we know, the temp janitor (with keys to go _everywhere_) was
> the culprit. 've always wondered who does the security check on people
> like that (janitors, cleaners etc etc:-).
> 
> Cheers
You would be surprised at how many companies neglect to check cleaning people
for security. They hire a "cleaning service" and expect them to do the checks.
Many cleaning companies will grab temps when they are short staffed, sometimes
even "friends of friends" just to get the work done.
Our company had a service that was caught bringing their kids in with them and
letting them run loose while they worked. Luckily, we have a 24 hour
dispatcher on duty, and he caught them in the cameras as soon as they let
their kids in.  Bye bye to that company!! The owner was quite miffed at his
employees for loosing the contract.

-- 

MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!