Sebelius: "The Website Has Never Crashed."

Diabolical
reply to post by IAMTAT

 

Where's Anonymous when you need them.

Apparently the site didn't need Anon to crash it.....just bad script in general.

reply to post by grey580


It wasn't just overloaded with people trying to get into it, it DDOS'd itself which is pretty funny considering....

www.reuters.com...

Isn't it great that we're still paying her?

apparently she whispered to an aide,
That's when Sebelius turned to an aide sitting behind her and whispered, 'Don't do this to me.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I saw that report as well, guess they're leaving her as the fall guy or girl in this case. This isn't the first time we've seen them hang one of their own to save the rest.

ObjectZero
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I saw that report as well, guess they're leaving her as the fall guy or girl in this case. This isn't the first time we've seen them hang one of their own to save the rest.

They throw them all under the bus, they are willing to fall on their swords for this guy.

How many does this make, even before Barack “Under the Bus” Obama first term, the term throw them under the bus was used.

Has he ever taken responsibility for anything?

well I thought I would throw in my "professional" 2 cents:

The site performed exactly as designed! As a software engineer that designs and implements web applications (and; YES for insurance companies), that site should have had zero issues, even with a very short development time. (say a couple of weeks).

Oh, and this "super secure" Akamai (or whatever), is only an accelerator for Apache the standard and very outdated HTTP server for both Unix and Linux. It is not anything "special".

The government may have just received a lesson in "who" is really in control...software engineers.

IAMTAT
I suppose it depends on what your definition of 'crashed' is...but, c'mon...should we at least expect some honest, un-parsed language from this woman...at this point in the healthcare.gov debacle?

AND...if she insists it never crashed...WHY was the administration (as well as the media) initially insisting that the website ceased to function because it was overwhelmed with such an unexpectedly massive amount of traffic from eager citizens?...Isn't that, technically, the same thing as crashing?

At a hearing on Capitol Hill, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said that the Obamacare website has "never crashed."

www.youtube.com...

"The website never crashed. It is functional, but at a very slow speed and very low reliability and has continued to function,” said Sebelius.

www.weeklystandard.com...

www.nationalreview.com...

edit on 30-10-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

uh she is right... people need to understand the difference between a crash and what amounts to a denial of service.
websites don't crash servers do, and as far as i'm aware too many connections rarely will take a whole server down.
servers are designed not to allow this, so unless the software they are using is really poor, which i doubt, or the hardware is faulty then it most likely that the website is receiving what amounts to a denial of service attack.

tanka418
well I thought I would throw in my "professional" 2 cents:

The site performed exactly as designed! As a software engineer that designs and implements web applications (and; YES for insurance companies), that site should have had zero issues, even with a very short development time. (say a couple of weeks).

Oh, and this "super secure" Akamai (or whatever), is only an accelerator for Apache the standard and very outdated HTTP server for both Unix and Linux. It is not anything "special".

The government may have just received a lesson in "who" is really in control...software engineers.

how is apache outdated? it's what like 70-80 percent of the internet runs websites on, it's updated quite frequently.

being hammered by millions will saturate any connection, seems they need a bigger pipe for the site.

demongoat

tanka418
well I thought I would throw in my "professional" 2 cents:

The site performed exactly as designed! As a software engineer that designs and implements web applications (and; YES for insurance companies), that site should have had zero issues, even with a very short development time. (say a couple of weeks).

Oh, and this "super secure" Akamai (or whatever), is only an accelerator for Apache the standard and very outdated HTTP server for both Unix and Linux. It is not anything "special".

The government may have just received a lesson in "who" is really in control...software engineers.

how is apache outdated? it's what like 70-80 percent of the internet runs websites on, it's updated quite frequently.

being hammered by millions will saturate any connection, seems they need a bigger pipe for the site.

Apache is the original HTTP server. it was, and still is, the least capable HTTP server around.

Yes, it is used by many, though not quite as many as you think, AND, it is also the lowest cost server around, thus its popularity (do you really want to deploy something as important as your government, insurance, nearly anything important, on a FREE server?)

Apache does not allow for managed session states, and there is NO software add-on that does (even though PHP my try). Apache was intended for "old school" HTTP service, by "old school" you should read "pre - 2000".

And, I wouldn't bet the Farm that Apache has EVER been updated. (actually I think it was in the late 90's)

So, yeah, professional opinion; Apache is outdated. (by the way I only used Apache once, client insisted; I prefer IIS).

"being hammered by millions will saturate any connection, seems they need a bigger pipe for the site. "

A bigger pipe won't help. Being 'hammered" by millions is what load balancing is all about, perhaps they should have used IIS, it may balance the load better. As it was pointed out; Utube is "hammered" by millions all the time...by the way they use Apache. MSN is "hammered" by millions all the time; they use IIS. ATS gets hammered by...well only thousands, they use Apache, sometime they are not available, but I doubt that ATS has the resources to configure a cluster of much size. And, still, the hardware should have been able to handle it, hammered by millions or not...the software on the other hand...does only what it was told.

VoidHawk
Look at the absolutely HUMUNGUS bandwidth of youtube!!!!
Tens of millions of people all downloading HUGE video files, and all at the same time!
Compare that to the few bytes of text each person downloads from the webpages of the gov site!

Kinda makes them look stoopid if they cant cope with that.

And what you don't seem to understand is that when YouTube launched in 2005, they didn't have the volume on day one that healthcare.gov had. They launched, and grew over time. They were able to scale up their operations over time without ever having this huge slam on day one and have it continue while they were trying to scale.

I can't think of any other website in the history of the internet that has had as much anticipation and as much traffic on it on day one as healthcare.gov had. Most websites start small and grow over time with users, bandwidth, servers, and optimized code.

Do you think the original version of ATS could handle the amount of traffic it gets today?

AlienScience

VoidHawk
Look at the absolutely HUMUNGUS bandwidth of youtube!!!!
Tens of millions of people all downloading HUGE video files, and all at the same time!
Compare that to the few bytes of text each person downloads from the webpages of the gov site!

Kinda makes them look stoopid if they cant cope with that.

And what you don't seem to understand is that when YouTube launched in 2005, they didn't have the volume on day one that healthcare.gov had. They launched, and grew over time. They were able to scale up their operations over time without ever having this huge slam on day one and have it continue while they were trying to scale.

I can't think of any other website in the history of the internet that has had as much anticipation and as much traffic on it on day one as healthcare.gov had. Most websites start small and grow over time with users, bandwidth, servers, and optimized code.

Do you think the original version of ATS could handle the amount of traffic it gets today?

The Government had the benefit of knowing beforehand exactly how many Americans exist.

They knew exactly how many people they would need to accomodate.
Their site handled 6 people the first day (out of 4.7 million visits), and I would bet that three of them were pissed off afterwards.

reply to post by butcherguy

The Government had the benefit of knowing beforehand exactly how many Americans exist.

They knew exactly how many people they would need to accomodate.
Their site handled 6 people the first day (out of 4.7 million visits), and I would bet that three of them were pissed off afterwards.

I see you are running with that rumored number of 6 people on the first day talking point. Tell me, does it matter how many signed up on the first day? Do they get a prize? Did they get a cheaper plan for signing up on the first day?

And it is obvious you know little about software development.

Keep trying though, it's cute.

tanka418

Apache is the original HTTP server. it was, and still is, the least capable HTTP server around.

uhhh... so why is it still the topped used server if it is the "least capable"? it isn't the first by the way, it came out in 1996, the first was CERN httpd

Yes, it is used by many, though not quite as many as you think, AND, it is also the lowest cost server around, thus its popularity (do you really want to deploy something as important as your government, insurance, nearly anything important, on a FREE server?)

it has 60 market share, it went down a bit over oh... give or take 15 years. if you get people who know how to design a server correctly whats the problem?

Apache does not allow for managed session states, and there is NO software add-on that does (even though PHP my try). Apache was intended for "old school" HTTP service, by "old school" you should read "pre - 2000".

And, I wouldn't bet the Farm that Apache has EVER been updated. (actually I think it was in the late 90's)

thanks for rendering your opinion meaningless, it was updated in july of this year! it has a dev branch too, so you are off by about 13 or so years.
it has managed session states, or do sites that say "how to do managed session states" not exist?

So, yeah, professional opinion; Apache is outdated. (by the way I only used Apache once, client insisted; I prefer IIS).

you have no idea what you are talking about, no wonder you don't know, you are more than 10 years behind on apache.

"being hammered by millions will saturate any connection, seems they need a bigger pipe for the site. "

A bigger pipe won't help. Being 'hammered" by millions is what load balancing is all about, perhaps they should have used IIS, it may balance the load better. As it was pointed out; Utube is "hammered" by millions all the time...by the way they use Apache.

so.. they should use IIS even though youtube uses apache? wut? if apache works fine why use IIS?

i take it back it wasn't the pipe, they may not have configured it to connect millions of users at once, and it struggled to do what it needed to, not exactly a new issue to bash the gov about, it happens all the time.

MSN is "hammered" by millions all the time; they use IIS. ATS gets hammered by...well only thousands, they use Apache, sometime they are not available, but I doubt that ATS has the resources to configure a cluster of much size. And, still, the hardware should have been able to handle it, hammered by millions or not...the software on the other hand...does only what it was told.

edit on 1-11-2013 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

yeah but when was the last time MSN was hammered by millions of people all at once? msn is more than one site, i wouldn't expect a huge corp like microsoft to design crappy server clusters.
also ATS has never been hammered by millions of people either.
load might be an issue too, but apache is one of the most robust webservers out there it's why a lot of websites use it and it has the most market share.

IIS is okay but you need to lock it down, it has so much stuff open in comparison to apache. you really need to go look apache up, you really don't seem to know much about it anymore.
when did you use it? 1997?

AlienScience

And what you don't seem to understand is that when YouTube launched in 2005, they didn't have the volume on day one that healthcare.gov had. They launched, and grew over time. They were able to scale up their operations over time without ever having this huge slam on day one and have it continue while they were trying to scale.

I can't think of any other website in the history of the internet that has had as much anticipation and as much traffic on it on day one as healthcare.gov had. Most websites start small and grow over time with users, bandwidth, servers, and optimized code.

Do you think the original version of ATS could handle the amount of traffic it gets today?

lol it's hilarious watching people on here pretend they are networking experts, or think they know what it's like to build a network up for that many people.

no network in the history of humanity has EVER been able to meet the needs of people connecting to it the first time.
no network software at all.
because software is never tested with millions of people, it is tested at most with a few hundred, and the clients always overwhelm the servers, always.

if you are a networking expert you should bloody well know this.

It is possible it was not intended to work to goad us into rash acts.Every other day some idiotic push against America is thrown at us while the faithful eat it up to pursue a progressive effort that requires us to surrender all of our rights .

reply to post by demongoat

no network in the history of humanity has EVER been able to meet the needs of people connecting to it the first time.
no network software at all.
because software is never tested with millions of people, it is tested at most with a few hundred, and the clients always overwhelm the servers, always.

if you are a networking expert you should bloody well know this.

I swear that is exactly what I said...maybe you should re-read it.

But sites like facebook and youtube didn't start out with millions trying to sign on the first day...they had the advantage of being able to scale up gradually instead of attempting to handle millions of people on the very first day.

Outsourced project that doesn't work. Make me very happy. But at this point, it will not be a lesson learned.

The American government doesn't care.

reply to post by IAMTAT


Technically then by that logic.... I dont have a little gut forming....I have a super athletic former me keeping warm under a new fatty layer of home cooking and stress......which took the form of a belly in training....

Thanks!

Everything is OK then....

reply to post by AlienScience

And it is obvious you know little about software development.

It is pretty obvious that the Federal Government and the Canadian company that they hired know less than they should.

By the way, what I know about software development matters not. I did not take it upon myself to perform the task that is the subject here.... the Feds did..... and they failed miserably.

If you know so much about it, maybe they should be paying you to work on the failed system..... instead of paying you to post on websites.

I see you are running with that rumored number of 6 people on the first day talking point.

That would be from the MSM.... one of Obama's up until now LAPDOGS....CBS.
It was probably a lie fed to them by the Administration... an inflated number no doubt... trying to make themselves look 'good'.