On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 10:04 +1300, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 21/11/2007, at 9:54 AM, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:38 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:
ComputerWorld article. http://s0.tx.co.nz/at/tep34n279457j138688i194855f2c4680224a4t9s4z
"However, the switch failed to connect to the generator and the systems ran down the batteries before the failure was noticed."
Wow. That is kind of embarrasing. I would have thought that during routine tests you make sure that what you're testing actually works. It must be time to revise that particular test procedure...
Don't worry, it's not a people or procedure problem: "When Computerworld spoke to Telecom last week, the failure had been traced to a component in the UPS switch, which had been replaced. Investigations continue into what made the component fail and how to avoid a recurrence of the problem, said the spokeswoman."
Clearly the reason power went out is a component failure.
But it was only noticed *after* the UPS batteries went flat? Oh well... -- Andrew Ruthven, Wellington, New Zealand At home: andrew(a)etc.gen.nz | This space intentionally | left blank.