Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

London Stock Exchange To Abandon Windows

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-weld-shut-the-doors-then dept.

Windows 438

BBCWatcher writes "Computerworld's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that the London Stock Exchange is abandoning its Microsoft Windows-based trading platform: 'Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE's Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day .... Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ...'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let me be the first to say... (4, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 5 years ago | (#28570887)

...Huzzah!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (3, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571429)

Was I the first person to think "London Stock Exchange was running on Windows? HOLY SHIT!"
(Of course I know I wasn't... but cmon! :P )

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571575)

MS used to run lots of ads, including banner ads on slashdot, about how the london stock exchange chose windows over linux... Those ads stopped very quickly when they had the big outage a few months ago.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Insightful)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571955)

Quote from article:

But, then, it's not often you see enterprise software fail quite so badly and publicly as was the case with the LSE

A quote from another source is appropriate here:

This is a good death. There's no shame in this, in a man's death. A man who has done fine works. We're making a better world. All of them - better worlds.

article:

So, might I suggest to the LSE that they consider Linux as the foundation for their next stock software infrastructure?

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571449)

There still are some documents from Microsoft detailing how the system was intended. Enjoy, before LSE looses its status as case study.

http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=200042

mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/windowsserversystem/facts/videos/LSE_CaseStudy_Rev_750k.wmv

http://switch.atdmt.com/action/FY07_Linux_LSE_Download (already gone)

Seems more big bussiness and goverments.... (1)

yourassOA (1546173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28570929)

around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products.
http://www.microsoft.com/canada/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
Make your own damn clicky.

Re:Seems more big bussiness and goverments.... (1, Informative)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28570967)

Yeah right. [thehumanjourney.net]

Re:Seems more big bussiness and goverments.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28570969)

Yes, but it's a shame that so many have to get burned badly by trusting Microsoft and their subpar products first.

Re:Seems more big bussiness and goverments.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571553)

I'm a little puzzled by the link.

The list of case studies looks a bit like the Fortune 500 list and then some, I'm not sure how that proves more and more customers are moving away?

Seems more choose Solaris. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572049)

"around the world are looking at alternatives for MS products. "

Yes I believe Solaris will do nicely.

Elementary, my near noob (2, Insightful)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#28570981)

Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation had their face slapped this September when the LSE (London Stock Exchange)'s Windows-based TradElect system brought the market to a standstill for almost an entire day. While the LSE denied that the collapse was TradElect's fault, they also refused to explain what the problem really wa.

Right, so it wasn't M$'s TradElect's fault, therefore it clearly was M$'s TradElect's fault. Someone give this guy a job at the FBI!

Re:Elementary, my near noob (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571201)

You left out this bit:

Sources at the LSE tell me to this day that the problem was with TradElect ...

I mean, I'll agree that bashing microsoft, solely for the sake of bashing microsoft, is so 10 years ago... but it sounds plausible, given the nature of the CEO change-up, the inside sources, and the wholesale replacement of their microsoft-made system.

Re:Elementary, my near noob (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571477)

I'm a bit confused as to why it's Microsoft getting knocked on the head here. Sure, SQL Server 2000 might not be the best choice, but how are we to know what actually caused the issues? You could write poorly written code anywhere, and outages could well be caused by hardware failure and poor failover planning. To blame it all on the .NET framework seems a bit odd to me, without knowing what was causing all the problems.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of SQL Server databases for huge mission-critical applications (multi-version consistency in TempDB version stores, anyone?).

Re:Elementary, my near noob (4, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571835)

If I recall correctly, the TradElect platform was pushed by MS as a showcase for its new .NET 1.0 platform, and was written by a whole team (or two) of outsourced developers in this brand new, shiny technology. They ported it to .NET 1.1 but I'm not sure they ever tried to port it to .NET 2.0.

Did I mention it was developed in conjunction with Accenture? Oh, and it was developed by Microsoft itself by all the news reports (though I bet the development was done by cheapest devs Accenture could hire, with a few MS consultants discussing architecture and collecting big fees - it didn't cost $40m in hardware alone!)

So, yes, it could have been poorly written code, but as you say, you can write poor .NET code. It always seemed to me that the project was akin to an 'enterprise java' one of yesteryear - big, slow, over-engineered, poorly developed, resource intensive and generally 'too big to fail'. Seems also that the LSE knows better than to hang on to the worst kind of crappy software and try to make it better.

As for MS bashing, they're the big boy, so they always take the hit. If all software written for MS was great and worked perfectly, we'd worship them as gods. As it is, we continually see problems and give them no slack. If they were a small company trying hard to make a difference, we'd be more forgiving.

Re:Elementary, my near noob (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571483)

M$? [penny-arcade.com]

Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28570997)

It's not Windows vs Linux.

It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.

TradElect never managed its performance promises, which suggests lies from marketing and / or programmers unable to deliver what they were asked to. Despite what the Linux fanboys love to say, inferior software isn't Windows-only, and does exist on Linux too.

This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software. The OS is irrelevant here, except to fanboys of either side.

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571055)

Exactly. We run 90% of our mission critical software at work on Windows and don't have problems...but have moved to Linux to run remote monitoring software. Should I make a post saying we're abandoning the horrible crappy Windows market for Linux? That would be just as incorrect of a statement.

Re:Not Windows' fault (4, Funny)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571073)

This could easily have been the other way around, ditching Linux and a shit piece of trades software for Windows and a good bit of trades software

Yeah, but then it wouldn't have made Slashdot!

I thought programming for windows was great (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571083)

"Developers! Developers! Developers!" and all that.

And the problem COULD be that Windows just doesn't work for what is needed.

Re:Not Windows' fault (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571091)

I was about to say the same thing. TFA spends more time on rumour and innuendo than it does on facts, but it appears the competition is between applications - not operating systems.

Re:Not Windows' fault (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571145)

inferior software isn't Windows-only

Who is saying that?

That idiot SJVN doesn't count.

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571165)

It's not Windows vs Linux.

You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue. In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft. With the requirements not being met that it be a high-performance, real-time application and the fact that they were unable to deliver even with MS being involved made them lose faith in the company and their products (.NET, Windows Server, SQL server).

I'd say that if MS wasn't involved in the development of the app that it's possible that they would scrap the app rather than the OS/framework, but if I was in that position, I'd do the same thing.

It's possible that they also look at the chicago stock exchange and the NYSE and the fact that their apps are running on Linux and have decided to move to a proven, successful system.

Re:Not Windows' fault (4, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571341)

; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.

"Accenture"? You mean Andersen Consulting? The people that you'd have to be a complete idiot to do business with after the Enron disaster?

-jcr

Re:Not Windows' fault (2, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571479)

"Accenture"? You mean Andersen Consulting? The people that you'd have to be a complete idiot to do business with after the Enron disaster?

I'm can't say that I'm familiar with what involvement they had with Enron, but I've had a half-dozen friends who have worked at Accenture and from what I know of them, they do pretty good work usually.

The key point is that MS was involved with development. Several people I've talked to about this article have said ".NET is NOT ready for enterprise applications of this scale with those requirements." If that's such a well-known fact, you'd have thought that MS would have thrown a red flag up and pressured to have a different tech used for the project.

Maybe this was just a learning experiment for MS (like the first xbox and first couple zunes) and they could afford to lose such a high-profile customer. But that just proves that no matter how big you are, MS doesn't really care about you. Why make the best when good enough sells better?

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571631)

I worked for Accenture in one of the "delivery centres" in the Eastern Europe and it was total crap. They hired 1st and 2nd year students for peanuts, and sold them as professionals to rich foreign companies. The turnover of staff was about a third - after one learned something, it was best to get out of there as soon as possible. From the posts on the glassdoor i can infer that this is the strategy accenture employs worldwide.

accenture just sucks.

Re:Not Windows' fault (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571695)

No, that was Arthur Andersen. Andersen Consulting was a separate company. They changed their name to Accenture to distance themselves from the failure of Arthur Andersen, because so many people mistakenly thought that Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen were the same company.

Re:Not Windows' fault (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571741)

Andersen consulting split off from Arthur Andersen. They WERE the same company, and they shared the same rotten management attitude. Accenture is just as sleazy as their former auditing partners ever were.

Re:Not Windows' fault (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572123)

Accenture split from Andersen years before the Enron scandal. So, in that regard, they're clean.

Re:Not Windows' fault (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572191)

TFA says accenture. Did they just change names like diddy or something?

Re:Not Windows' fault (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571735)

I've always believed that Microsoft don't really get mission critical software so I'm surprised they got the contract. My experience with their OSs suggests that time and time again they fail to get the basics right or that things just work superficially. They cover this up by submerging it in a slopping sea of unwanted bloaty features.

What this implies is that they must have damned good sales executives to overcome the word on the street.

Re:Not Windows' fault (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571863)

You say it's not Windows' fault and I agree--it wasn't an OS problem (per se), but rather an application issue. In actuality, it's Microsoft's fault; the application was developed in joint by Accenture AND Microsoft.

Being currently an Accenture employee, i find it increidble that the application managed to work at all. Sometimes i wonder if they get tax cuts from hiring incompetent people.

Sorry i have to post within the shroud of anonymity.

Re:Not Windows' fault (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571999)

Not arguing your point. Just making a note that Accenture is a Microsoft backed consulting firm. Had a friend who used to work for them, but really worked for Microsoft. Just saying. So yah, it is a Microsoft problem, and is most likely due to just a poor programming team.

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

Idaho (12907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571191)

It's not Windows vs Linux.

It's TradElect vs MarketPrizm, which happen to run on Windows vs Linux respectively.

Then again, TradElect was written by Microsoft and Accenture [onwindows.com] , so Microsoft where heavily involved in this project themselves - not just from the perspective of Windows only.

In addition, they touted this in their "Get The Facts" anti-Linux campaign, so I'm sorry, but pointing out this failure and blaming it on Microsoft (though perhaps not the Windows OS as such) is fair game IMO.

I mean, if a large and well-known consulting firm together with Microsoft themselves can't make a Windows-based framework perform, who can?

Re:Not Windows' fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571423)

I seriously doubt microsoft was involved in the development of tradelect. marketing in collaboration with accenture yes.

Re:Not Windows' fault (2, Informative)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571791)

As I recall, Microsoft agreed to 'fully-support' the operation. If that meant Dev-Level folks to test & crush London Stock Exchange Bugs, then MS had the responsibility along with Accenture to ensure such a thing didn't happen.

It seems to me that even in a support-role, MS would have been involved directly in the on-going data-center architecture, for example.

Epic-Failure for sure.

Re:Not Windows' fault (4, Insightful)

rapiddescent (572442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572043)

I seriously doubt microsoft was involved in the development of tradelect. marketing in collaboration with accenture yes.

From an old Computer Weekly [computerweekly.com] article
"Accenture built the Tradelect platform in India between late 2004 and March this year."

And from an old information age article [information-age.com] , a classic Quote from the now departed IT Director:
"That was where Microsoft came in. We looked at their whole suite of technology from their development environment through to their databases and operating systems, and we decided that their technology was best aligned to achieving this range of design principles. We also found that they were willing to operate as true partners with us and to engage throughout the whole four-year programme rather than on particular components within it where there was potential revenue for them through licence sales. So we felt that not only did their technology stack up against the design principles, but they were genuinely able to act as a partner. They recognised at the most senior levels what we were trying to achieve here and that was important to us."

That's £40m over a short 2 years of service [onwindows.com] - work out the TCO on the depreciation cost alone! So, yes, I do think Microsoft has a lot to answer for because they were engaged at the highest levels. Also, Accenture have a lot to answer for. As soon as I saw "India", well, I'm sorry, but it's rare for an offshore project to meet requirements - in the same way that a project for Bank of India outsourced to the UK would probably fail.

It's worth a look at the Chi-X platform sales brochure [sii.org.uk] (it's PPT, how ironic) which is a direct competitor to LSE and uses Linux successfully. Chi-X has about 15% or so of UK FTSE 100 trades. The amazing feature of CHi-X is its low latency - especially in trading where 20 ms is a very long time and can cost principals serious money.

Re:Not Windows' fault (-1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571505)

I never said you can't blame Microsoft, but I doubt that they really had much input into the project, and just jumped on it as a marketing opportunity.

Similar to how video games always have the logo of the publisher on the front of the box, and the actual developer is only credited on the back.
"EA made this terrible game" etc in reviews normally means "EA published this terrible game which was made by someone else".

Regardless, there is nothing to suggest (except this terrible article and fanboys) that the LSE has any issue with Windows itself, just with their trading software.

Re:Not Windows' fault (2, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571799)

Microsoft...jumped on it as a marketing opportunity.

They have to reap what they sow here. If you use someone else's work as an example of your own ability, you better be damned sure you understand it's quality.

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

ForexCoder (1208982) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571225)

It's not Windows vs Linux.

No, it's Microsoft vs Linux.

Microsoft had full control over the stack of tools they used (Windows Server 2003, C#/.NET, Sql Server 2000, I believe) and they invested a lot of resources, both technical and marketing, into making this system run. It was suppose to show that Microsoft software could handle this kind of system as well or better then *nix. And it was a failure.

See Get the Facts [microsoft.com] for more details.

Re:Not Windows' fault (4, Interesting)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571275)

It's more than that, it's the OS that the software has to run on (since the OS handles the majority of the context switching and thread prioritization - which affect performance when you're shooting for something that approximates a real-time system), and it's the DB that the software ties into. The fanboism (both on the linux side and microsoft side) is annoying, I'll grant you that, but this DOES have something to do with the OS.

Re:Not Windows' fault (1)

parryFromIndia (687708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571309)

Mod parent up. There is a refreshing amount of reality in the parent's post.

The OS is irrelevant - every modern server OS performs well enough to support sanely written software and sanely designed infrastructure. Only the people living in the past and the ones having no clue will argue otherwise.

That is not to say any OS is without its quirks and differences. Part of writing software for a platform is also to understand and work around the platform's limitations, quirks or "ways" - and this obviously applies to every platform. (You don't go over committing memory on Linux and expect it will work as long as malloc() doesn't return NULL - you can do that on Solaris. Similarly I am sure there are things you can do on Linux but not on Solaris etc.) Unfortunately many programmers only know the programming language and its libraries - not the platform or even general OS concepts or scalability for that matter.

The suits are trigger happy - if some thing doesn't work for a time, they will just ask to get rid of it and use other product, redesign the whole thing or do something equally idiotic. I am sure the TradElect system can be fixed to run on Windows 2003 well enough - but the people who make decisions will not make an attempt to locate competent Architects and Programmers that can actually fix it.

[ This reminds me of a situation where we were asked to throw away a complete system because it wasn't able to handle high volumes and caused downtime - as it turned out, adding network timeouts and retries to the right places along with horizontal scaling resolved the issue completely satisfactorily and we are still running the same system 3 years later]

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571475)

The OS is irrelevant - every modern server OS performs well enough to support sanely written software and sanely designed infrastructure. Only the people living in the past and the ones having no clue will argue otherwise.

Or the ones who don't know what they're talking about, like you.

This is one of the main stock exchanges in the world. Billions of dollars of trade rely on microsecond-precise handling. There are whole companies (and not small ones) that do stuff like inter-exchange trading which is the buzzword for "buy for $1,5678 in London, sell for $1,5679 in Tokyo before anyone else does and the prices equalize". These are companies that are willing to put down five to six digit sums per month if they can get an Internet connection with a few milliseconds less latency.

For this environment, you don't need "sanely managed". Any delay whatsoever in the transactions is bad. Any time a transaction can not be handled properly due to delay, queues or any fucking other reason, one of your traders is unhappy. And you don't want unhappy traders when they are your business.

Re:Not Windows' fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571573)

Hmm, I'm thinking that kind of behavior is so insane, I'd rather the stock exchange not support it, and rather work to invalidate any attempt. Seriously, that kind of trading is not good for the economy or the market, it's taking advantage of delays in the system, not actually relying on value, but rather on hopping ahead of the bus to pick up pennies.

No thank you, no thank you at all.

Re:Not Windows' fault (-1, Troll)

parryFromIndia (687708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571591)

What? Are you serious? You actually made the same point I did - except that you made it by _NOT_ mentioning the OS! The rest of what you wrote is complete BS - sorry. BS not on its own but BS to the current context. You don't want unhappy traders - sure, but how the fuck is the OS directly responsible to unhappy traders? At least make some points to clarify may be? Or would that be too much to ask for?

Re:Not Windows' fault (5, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571665)

Yes i will second that, responsiveness is one of the most important aspects to traders...
They have special keyboards tailored to their particular trading applications so you can enter trades quicker...
They have dedicated lines between sites because a vpn going over the internet would be slower...
They use unencrypted and often unauthenticated protocols to reduce the overhead.
They intentionally use very short or no passwords so they are quicker to enter...
Security, cost, all secondary factors to the need for low latency.

Re:Not Windows' fault (0, Troll)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571939)

At work I have daily problems with Windows. And the worst part is that when it has a problem Windows is a mystery to what happened a lot of the time. Some cryptic message in the event log that means nothing. I have had much better luck keeping linux systems up and stable. Microsoft is easier to use and has more applications, but I would never use it to keep something mission critical running.

are you fucking blind ? (5, Insightful)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572171)

In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes [slashdot.org] , Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange

Thanks. (4, Funny)

bezking (1274298) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571001)

"Anyone who was ever fool enough to believe that Microsoft software was good enough to be used for a mission-critical operation"


This just made my day. Now i can go back to bed.

Thanks!

Re:Thanks. (1)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571787)

Tell that to the PHB that bought our Exchange box!

Two years worth of use (5, Interesting)

Jerky McNaughty (1391) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571007)

I'm in the industry, so I have a little more background on this. They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years. It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture. Other reasons why the system sucks: It can only handle about 10,000 orders/second, and has latency numbers that are incredibly high (5 milliseconds+).

Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well.

TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster.

Re:Two years worth of use (4, Informative)

number6x (626555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571163)

It was not entirely outsourced to Accenture. It was a joint Acenture Microsoft project. Microsoft was involved at all levels of development, testing, deployment, and support.

As one poster to the SJVN article (Bernard) points out, both Microsoft and LSE confirm Microsoft's complete involvement in the project:

"(I found the study http://switch.atdmt.com/action/FY07_Linux_LSE_Download [atdmt.com] on MS's own site.) http://www.microsoft.com/uk/getthefacts/lse.mspx [microsoft.com]

to wit; page 4:

"In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange to ensure not only that they understood their immediate requirements, but that the solution fitted their long-term business plans as specified in the TRM project."

"Robin Paine, Chief Technical Officer at the Exchange, says: âoeThe London Stock Exchange was looking for a responsive partner to engage across all phases of the Technology Roadmap programme. The collaborative approach Microsoft offered made it an ideal choice."

Any more questions on whether Microsoft was "really" involved?

There never was any doubt -- Microsoft was deeply and intimately involved, and bragged about it as loudly as they could. In fact, it was Microsoft which presented this an issue of Windows and Microsoft "technology" capabilities as compared to Linux -- Ironic, isn't it?"

Given Microsoft's history of FUD, their habitual use of paid commentors, or even dead people writing letters, I think we should all sit back and enjoy the spin the paid apologists will have to go through to tell everyone how it wasn't MS's fault.

I bet that link on Microsoft's own site telling hoe closely involved they were in the project won't last through the Holiday weekend! Any takers?

Re:Two years worth of use (2, Funny)

LordEd (840443) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571467)

Given Microsoft's history of FUD, their habitual use of paid commentors, or even dead people writing letters, I think we should all sit back and enjoy the spin the paid apologists will have to go through to tell everyone how it wasn't MS's fault.

As an unpaid dead person writing a letter, let me the first to say BRAAAIIINNSSS....

Re:Two years worth of use (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571199)

They spent about 40M GBP building the system, and it's only been used for two years. It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture.

We've got a contract with Accenture at work. Apparently they manage our computer systems. Having seen some of the prices they charge for things like "putting a usable amount of memory in a laptop" I'm assuming that breaks down somewhere in the region of £38M for Accenture fees and £2M for the actual application!

Re:Two years worth of use (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571377)

We've got a contract with Accenture at work

What company is that? I want to short your stock.

-jcr

NASDAQ going on 5++ yrs. stable on Windows (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571315)

"Looking at other exchanges, there are trading platforms that have been able to last 10+ years while scaling quite well." - by Jerky McNaughty (1391) on Friday July 03, @09:40AM (#28571007)

NASDAQ is an example of this, & yes: NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:

----

NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [windowsfs.com]

&/or

NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:

http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/ [sqlauthority.com]

"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down."

+

Case Studies - Financial Services:

http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]

"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries

NASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members. As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."

----

NOW - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":

http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare [nasdaqtrader.com]

"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."

----

AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, & speed on Windows, in a high tpm environs, keeping stable & running F A S T 24x7 for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!

APK

P.S.=? Personally, & especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, & the NASDAQ data I just provided here)? Well - I think a great deal of stability & uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects), as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Operating Systems + software involved (though this latter portion matters largely enough as well - but you have the example of NASDAQ doing well using Windows, & the London Stock Exchange folks NOT DOING WELL, so... you decide if I have a point here, or not)... apk

MOD PARENT DOWN!!!!! (5, Funny)

gazbo (517111) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571401)

Mere facts backed up by references are nothing compared to what you want to believe - silence him!

Yea, what good are FACTS... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571649)

"Mere facts backed up by references are nothing compared to what you want to believe - silence him!" - by gazbo (517111) on Friday July 03, @10:21AM (#28571401)

Yea, "gee... what good are facts & backing references, + how foolish of me to use them to back up my statements!"

(Oh well! Still, in any event, facts ARE facts - I just put them up as a "compare & contrast" scenario that shows Windows in an environs like a Stock Exchange that is HIGH "Transactions-Per-Minute" in nature IS 'doable' is all, & that SOME folks (NASDAQ) have done it right & well... others, per this article/thread here @ /., have not (The London Stock Exchange))

APK

P.S.=> Man, I can see it now - Here comes the "Pro-*NIX" assassination squads to attempt to shoot down facts (and myself ala 'ad-hominem' attacks upon myself no doubt, as this IS the "typical trend" in these cases) that show Windows can & HAS done the job well, & in exactly these types of environs, in Stock Exchanges...

Seriously though? You ought to have read my "p.s." in my last post!

What I stated there?? Yes, I truly believe THAT has the MOST to do with stability & uptime (as well as speed) - and, myself having designed or co-designed + coded/co-coded on teams around 25++ "Enterprise Class/Mission Critical" client-server DB systems in my time, and ones that have run 10++ yrs. stable & secure/bulletproof + bugfree (needing little alteration @ the core, mainly only reporting added on or changed up some over time) & of this type of nature in fact???

Well, heck - I'd have to say I know EXACTLY what I am talking about on these accounts (from BOTH the software engineering side, having built such systems, spanning millions of lines each, usually in VB/Delphi/C++ to SQLServer, DB/2, or Oracle versions, AND the network engineering portion as well), hands on professionally for 16++ yrs. now... apk

You missed the joke, which is not on you (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571963)

GP was being rude about Slashdot people who moderate down anything they disagree with regardless of facts, he was approving your post.

Now a question, or rather two questions. I'm curious (and we use SQL Server 2005)
What is the application layer for the NASDAQ system? I don't see that referenced in any of the articles? Is it .NET code or something else like C++?
Am I right in thinking that one simple factor in the performance difference would be that the LSEX system ran on SQL Server 2000 rather than 2005?

Naw, I got it (I was being 'sarcastic')... apk (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28572105)

See my subject-line above, first... tia! I wasn't being rude to he, I was actually trying to be humorous actually (So, sorry if you took it that way - I was just being 'sarcastic' when I said "yea, what good are facts" etc. et al is all, in my reply response).

"GP was being rude about Slashdot people who moderate down anything they disagree with regardless of facts, he was approving your post." - by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Friday July 03, @11:13AM (#28571963)

Lot of THAT going on, no doubt about it!

(I just went thru something of THAT nature here, where a guy named "Americano" (member here) has been trolling me for WEEKS under various guises & 'down-modding' my posts (when he & I had a MacOS X vs. Windows type debate, on security mostly) + even impersonating me on these forums (which he ended up being called a troll + getting "down-modded" by others in that thread for it) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1287729&cid=28539111 [slashdot.org]

In that URL? He went to EVERY post I made there, & down-modded it, first... that changed, read on:

In the end though, the parent poster, Freedom_India, actually expended a LOT of his own mod points (or I suspect it was he) & he upward modded that post from -1 "off topic", which he even agreed my 1st post clearly was not off topic, & the rest of them also, once "Americano" wasted all of his mod points, in downmods of my posts - so he could not turn around & down mod them once more!

1st time ANYONE here has been that nice/kind (whatever you would like to call it I suppose) to me here in fact... goes to show you that others do help others when they're getting abused/threatened (which Americano did threaten he would mod down all my posts as much as he could no less & he was caught in that too) here. I was pleasantly surprised & thankful in fact.

So, yes - I know how THAT works, unfortunately... only TOO well @ times, & that url's an example thereof.

APK

P.S.=>

"What is the application layer for the NASDAQ system? I don't see that referenced in any of the articles? Is it .NET code or something else like C++?
Am I right in thinking that one simple factor in the performance difference would be that the LSEX system ran on SQL Server 2000 rather than 2005?"
- by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Friday July 03, @11:13AM (#28571963)

Great question: Unfortunately, I don't have the answer as to those specifics, & it MIGHT be possible that SQLServer 2005 makes much of the difference, but I like the fact they used clustering (failovers), to promote stability, mainly... seems to be working for the folks @ NASDAQ! apk

blame TradElect management (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572119)

"It was (entirely?) outsourced to Accenture .. TradElect was/is a project management and technical disaster", Jerky McNaughty

"A prototype .. was first developed with Microsoft and Accenture [microsoft.com] "

"There was quite a high degree of risk involved on both sides [avanade.com] . But Accenture, Microsoft and Avanade were very keen to make sure this would work. They pulled out all the stops"

Seems like a bunch of unknowing (4, Interesting)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571009)

Did the project. They needed a dedicated response time in the 1/100th second range and used a combination of Windows, SQL Server and .Net!
The project was doomed from day 0!
The article is at fault here, Windows alone is not at fault it is the entire stack beginning from the OS up to the implementation language which is at fault!

Re:Seems like a bunch of unknowing (2, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571017)

Btw. the same would apply to a blank linux java stack....
You need realtime stuff to do that!

Re:Seems like a bunch of unknowing (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571065)

For the people who post in mainframe articles asking what a mainframe is really useful for these days, here is a case study.

Re:Seems like a bunch of unknowing (1)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571415)

Given that MS was in on the development, and we can assume the requirements were known, it's a straight out case of vendor (and consultants) lying about the capabilities of the project, and customer later finding out the hard way.

But then again, spun that way it wouldn't be news.

Linux stock exchange systems sucks equaly bad (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571013)

NYSE and OMX both run Linux based systems. I trade on OMX Stockholm and there is a lot of hickups. I've heard a lot of bad things about NYSE too.

Re:Linux stock exchange systems sucks equaly bad (2, Interesting)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571233)

I contracted with the Chicago-based branch of the NYSE a couple years back and I can confirm the bad Linux setups.

Even the over night batch processing was horrible. Scripts and programs had to be manually started by an operator, then a checkoff sheet had to be signed by the operator. If something happened during execution (fairly common), it had to be restarted by hand, after backing out the failed step. No scheduling package whatsoever. Incredibly manual and error prone.

Re:Linux stock exchange systems sucks equaly bad (0, Troll)

number6x (626555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571933)

And even with all those problems they are faster and more stable than the LSE trade elect system!

Amazing!

The LSE system jointly developed by MS and Accenture must really be bad if the systems you and the poster above you have those problems and still run circle's around the LSE!

Just about everyone below 'C' level executives in IT already know not to hire Accenture, I guess we should add never use Microsoft to do your coding to that rule.

Even 30 Year old mainframe systems I've worked on have hiccups, but they are simple and easy to recover. There aren't a lot of 'moving parts' in most mainframe based systems and the hardware is extremely reliable. I can't imagine when .NET or J2EE will match that.

It seems almost impossible for large corporations to have a simple J2EE or .NET implementation. They seem to attract bloat like the underside of the couch attracts dust-balls. No wonder good developers in those disciplines are called 'gurus'. They would have to have the aesthetics extreme discipline of a Zen monk to fore go the bloat and wasteful design decisions and keep everything clean and simple.

blame Linux (2, Interesting)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572027)

"NYSE and OMX both run Linux based systems. I trade on OMX Stockholm and there is a lot of hickups. I've heard a lot of bad things about NYSE too", anonymous coward

"I contracted with the Chicago-based branch of the NYSE a couple years back and I can confirm the bad Linux setups", IANAAC

Do either of you, have any verifiable third party sources for these statements? When was the last time the Stockholm or NYSE stopped trading because of a Linux "outage?

Re:Linux stock exchange systems sucks equaly bad (1)

networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571823)

Do they publish their reliability stats?

Perhaps he should check his "Sources" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571063)

No change is schedule for September. And yes, I know.

Come on. TradElect is the problem. (4, Insightful)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571077)

They're abandoning TradElect and the platform it happened to be on. The OS is really a background to all of this. The primary cause of the switch has more to do with TradElect sucking than anything else. Having worked on the tech side of the finance industry, I am not at all surprised. They have some of the worst programmers in the world. Standard software methodology is rarely embraced. Unit tests? Code review? What's that? At the hedge fund where I worked, basically any time a developer left someone either had to pick up the pieces of crap he wrote or start over. Almost everyone choose the latter. I remember one morning one of the applications stopped working and we realized it's because we retired an old DB server and moved it to a new host. I asked the developer to just point it to the new host. They couldn't because the dumbasses had hard coded the hostname! They couldn't change it without a recompile! This was at one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, at the time at least. The problem was that none of the partners knew anything about software development so they didn't know if the CTO they hired was any good. They went by stupid things like names of the school he was from and names of his previous employers. His previous employers probably did the same. Software development in finance is a giant circle jerk.

Re:Come on. TradElect is the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571221)

Accenture, a division of AON, has an history of outsourcing its programming in India. Even their own internal accounting software programming is done in India, something that upsets its employees, directors and clients, who get to have many billing errors and delays.

No regression testing is done and since the Indian programmers do not fully understand the business processes, there are often major flaws in their software which force complete recompilation of the software.

And AON / Accenture is supposed to be a world leader in finance / management? I don't know where they picked up this reputation. They must have a very well trained marketing team!

Not surprising that their TradElect platform is a total mess and that London Stock Exchange abandons it...

blame Accenture (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571935)

"Accenture .. outsourcing .. India .. No regression testing .. programmers do not fully understand the business processes, there are often major flaws in their software which force complete recompilation of the software"

Do you have any verifiable third party citations for the above statements?

Re:Come on. TradElect is the problem. (4, Insightful)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571283)

I don’t know if Accenture sucks, but Microsoft itself was involved in first person in the development of the project (they were proud to announce this [microsoft.com] until now).
The fact that not even Microsoft’s involvement was able to make the system meet its requirements looks *very* indicative to me.

Re:Come on. TradElect is the problem. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571753)

Upper management are usually extremely non technical, which brings up a lot of problems...

As you pointed out, they are no good at identifying if someone else is technically competent...
Aside from that, they are more likely to trust marketing literature and advice from people they play golf with (who are likely to have vested interests)...

blame the programmers (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571897)

"They're abandoning TradElect and the platform it happened to be on. The OS is really a background to all of this. The primary cause of the switch has more to do with TradElect sucking than anything else

What exactly were the problems with TradElect and not caused by the underlying platform. According to this an 'external test environment' was in place, at least since Jan 2009.

"Availability of the external test environment [londonstockexchange.com] (Customer Development Service or CDS) for TradElect and Infolect: early January 2009"

"Using the Microsoft® .NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server(TM) 2000 database, the new Infolect® system .. with support from Microsoft and Accenture [microsoft.com] , shows the London Stock Exchange's leadership in developing next-generation trading systems"

It's not like MS based is a bad platform... (5, Interesting)

ihavenospine (541249) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571113)

...is just the WRONG platform for this. Stock Exchange, like many transaction based business, needs real time systems and Windows 2003 plus SQL as far I know don't make a RT platform.

Oh come on. The article is a troll. (1, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571255)

IF the article had said "We looked into this system in some detail, albeit after we'd bought it, and discovered that anything based on Windows was fundamentally incapable of meeting our needs. So we've decided to move", then I would take it more seriously.

As it is, it sounds like a political move from a new managing director who's trying to make themselves out to be as different as possible from the previous one - and one of the ways they're doing that is to ditch the computer system. The fact that the old system runs Windows and the obvious alternative runs Linux is neither here nor there.

Face facts, it's just as possible to produce a lousy system based on Linux as it is on Windows.

Not at all a troll (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571597)

Microsoft promised their operating system was capable of meeting demands. Microsoft was heavily involved in the implementation of the system.

Microsoft knew their operating systems don't do real-time processing, but insisted they could meet the demands anyway.

I seriously doubt this is a "political move". The cost of this transition will be high, and if their current system was salvageable they'd keep it.

NASDAQ another Stock Exchange does well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571435)

"Stock Exchange, like many transaction based business, needs real time systems and Windows 2003 plus SQL" - by ihavenospine (541249) on Friday July 03, @09:52AM (#28571113)

Correct, & agreed, 110% (with evidence thereof): NASDAQ is an example of this, & yes - NASDAQ has maintained the "fabled '5-9's" of 99.999% uptime on Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 (in failover clusters) since late 2005, acting as the official dissemination system of official trade data:

----

FIRST - the actual PROOF of that "stability/uptime":

http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=MarketShare [nasdaqtrader.com]

"NASDAQ is renowned for its high performance technology and has proven reliability with 99.999+% uptime. Whats more, firms count on NASDAQ for unsurpassed speed and tested capacity to execute trades quickly and efficiently."

----

NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [windowsfs.com]

&/or

NASDAQ Uses SQL Server 2005 - Reducing Costs through Better Data Management:

http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/09/17/sqlauthority-news-nasdaq-uses-sql-server-2005-reducing-costs-through-better-data-management/ [sqlauthority.com]

"NASDAQ, the worlds first electronic stock market replaced its aging mainframe computers with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the system with Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. The system also responds to about 10,000 queries a day and is able to handle real-time queries against data without slowing the database down."

+

Case Studies - Financial Services:

http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/cs-financial-roi.aspx?pf=true [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]

"NASDAQ Deploys SQL Server 2005 to Support Real-Time Trade Booking and Queries

NASDAQ, which became the worlds first electronic stock market in 1971, and remains the largest U.S. electronic stock market, is constantly looking for more-efficient ways to serve its members. As the organization prepared to retire its aging large mainframe computers, it deployed Microsoft® SQL Server 2005 on two 4-node clusters to support its Market Data Dissemination System (MDDS). Every trade that is processed in the NASDAQ marketplace goes through the MDDS system, with SQL Server 2005 handling some 5,000 transactions per second at market open. SQL Server 2005 simultaneously handles about 100,000 queries a day, using SQL Server 2005 Snapshot Isolation to support real-time queries against the data without slowing the database. NASDAQ is enjoying a lower total cost of ownership compared to the large mainframe computer system that the SQL Server 2005 deployment has replaced."

----

AND, "There ya are"... Evidence of the possible stability, security, & speed on Windows, AND, in a high tpm environs (and, in a Stock Exchange, specifically)...

(Keeping stable & running F A S T, + "24x7", & for 1/2 a decade++ going strong, acting as the official trade data dissemination system for NASDAQ!)

APK

P.S.=> Personally, & especially based on the evidences here (the thread topic itself, & the NASDAQ data I just provided here)?

Well - I think a great deal of stability & uptime has to do a LOT with the skills of those architecting a system, first, AND later those that have the task of maintaining it also (this means the network engineering staff AND coding teams around said projects), as well as their personal work-ethics - not so much on the Operating Systems + software involved (though this latter portion matters largely enough as well - but you have the example of NASDAQ doing well using Windows, & the London Stock Exchange folks NOT DOING WELL, so... you decide if I have a point here, or not)... apk

!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571169)

Windows has been known for ages to cause literally thousands of bugs in thousands of apps! On Linux, for instance, my Firefox 1.0 that came with my Ubuntu disto does not have to be updated every week or so.

From the articles comments (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571175)

Yeah I read those too ;) So windows issue or not, it is a Microsoft problem :

to wit; page 4:

"In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange to ensure not only that they understood their immediate requirements, but that the solution fitted their long-term business plans as specified in the TRM project."

and

"Robin Paine, Chief Technical Officer at the Exchange, says: âoeThe London Stock Exchange was looking for a responsive partner to engage across all phases of the Technology Roadmap programme. The collaborative approach Microsoft offered made it an ideal choice."

Any more questions on whether Microsoft was "really" involved? Then go do your own research -- there never was any doubt.

Why am I not surprised? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571313)

I worked on trading systems at the CBOE for a couple of years and one thing I can say for sure is that the only Microsoft systems there are the front-ends for the traders who insist on Windows. All the back-ends, where the real activity takes place, everything is Linux. So, only the trader GUIs are Windows, and everything else is Linux running on x86 blades - racks and racks of them. We never got a virus or trojan on the trading systems, but we were scrubbing viruses and other malware off the traders' front-ends all the time. Anyway, when I read about the LSE going with a Microsoft solution for their trading infrastructure, I could only shake my head and say "Remember Denver International Airport!"...

Maybe not Windows fault but sure is Microsoft's (3, Insightful)

tom1974 (413939) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571359)

From Microsoft's case study http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=200042 [microsoft.com]

In the development, roll-out, and implementation processes, Microsoft worked closely with the London Stock Exchange to ensure not only that they understood their immediate requirements, but that the solution fitted their long-term business plans as specified in the TRM project.

Microsoft was equally involved in this project no matter how you try to spin it.

Re:Maybe not Windows fault but sure is Microsoft's (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572063)

...and they're bragging about it in a case study.

It looks like they need to cut down their "Information Dissemination Time" with their webmasters as well... I wonder how long it will take before they pull this piece their "success" with LSE.

Exchange Server (5, Funny)

KraftDinner (1273626) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571379)

I never understood why Microsoft made a specific server for stock exchanges anyways. It sure does e-mail great though.

Re:Exchange Server (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571881)

As it turns out, single instance store isn't so hot for email or as an investment strategy.

Why? (1)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571431)

Do projects of a similar scope on Windows/SQL Server succeed while others fail? I contend that the answer is yes. Here's the secret....the programmers and customers assigned to work on the custom development project and their skills, ability, intelligence and maturity will determine the success of the project. This isn't a platform failure. It's a people failure.

Re:Why? (1)

JonJ (907502) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571523)

So you're telling us Microsoft can't code. I salute thee, Cap'n Obvious.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28572053)

If the people who create the tools (ie Microsoft) can't get it right using their own products, then what hope does anyone else have?

Re:Why? (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572195)

No it doesn't. I used to work for the people that do start.* (the start domain names of the late 90's - as you can imagine huge loads) and they ran on clusters of MSSQL. As soon as all CPU's (8- and 16-cores) hit 100% MSSQL pauses for a few milliseconds. I saw the same issue later for a large (well-known) oil company. Microsoft liked to make publicity that such customers ran MSSQL and Windows 2000 and 2003 but I believe none of them actually got any of the performance they had before on IBM mainframes or other Unix platforms

In other news (2, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571509)

In other news, the London Stock Exchange will shortly be abandoning the pound, as well.

And what on earth will they use? (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571571)

DOS?
CP/M?
VMS?
OS/400?

Re:And what on earth will they use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571825)

AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, BSD, ...

Run Awaaaay (1)

Tomsk70 (984457) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571675)

A finanical institution that gets it wrong? Who'd have thought it, in this current climate....

.NET GC is the one to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28571731)

You can't get regular microseconds response time using .NET. I work at another big Stock Exchange (one of the big fives) and they did here the same mistake LSE did. Most of the core systems are C#.

The .NETers will say "hey, look this micro-benchmark, C# is faster than C". But financial area software needs to be non-stop. Several times per day the garbage collector will STOP ALL YOUR THREADS to do it's job. Nowadays, you have lots of firms, funds and banks using algorithmic trade. A lot of programs trading against each other, and they will not be as efficient they could be with that intermittent [10-400]ms delay. It means less money.

The math is easy: More programs, more trades, more money to the Exchange. More trades, more data coming and going, more the GC will stop your business to reclaim unused memory.

I for one... (4, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571785)

Welcome our smug, bearded, Unix liking overloads.

Excuse me... (1)

locoztx (1532715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571915)

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I fail to see any specific examples of where the Windows based TradeElect software failed. I've seen better journalism in a high school yearbook class.

on one Microsoft (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28571965)

on one Microsoft way, it's never Microsofts fault... it's always a third party, that's just the way Microsoft operates (one Microsoft way).

Ambiguous attribution (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28572209)

Strong words, such as 'fool', are what a lot of people on Slashdot would call Microsoft bashing, EXCEPT this time, such words are eminently justified by the gravity of the situation. This time, you could pass a lot of the blame to other people and other software, and even then, Microsoft's share would be sufficient to justify words such as fool. In fact, it's hard to see how Microsoft's role in the English Stockmarket glitch could even conceivably be small enough that they don't deserve everything that's being said here. If you go solely by MS's own press releases and advertising claims, and how much they charged the exchange for their software, that's enough.

        However, in the summary, shouldn't the excerpt be in double quotes? Single quotes make it look like a paraphrase, and it is intended to be an actual quote from the source. Right or wrong, these strong words are from the original article, not the Slashdot submitter.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?