Cornelius Vanderbilt wrote:so they are now saying the backups were the ones that failed! looks like they never tested their backups and you know if you donot test your backup you donot have a backup in the first place.hope CA can take this logic and punish safcom.am sure safaricom are heavy on huawei (Chinese) hardware and software so put that in the mix.
Backups do fail, even when you test them regularly ...Murphy's law. The thing is you are supoosed to have a backup to the backup...some call it disaster recovery...but it is expensive having all these redundancies, even blue chips cut corners considering cost and that capacity sits idle during normal times. Not trying to defend safcom or minimize the scale of damage done to the economy, just talking as a techie who has lived through these sorts of issues.
On another front, CA requiring an expansive explanation is pointless. They should stick to monitoring and enforcing SLAs. Safcom can spin any old story they want about what happened, only the troubleshooting engineers know the whole truth...even Collymore himself could have been served a massaged and spinned story by the techs, smoothing out the very worst of it..or even outright lies..what is he going to do, argue with experts over engineering technicals?