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!

Feds Take USAjobs.gov Back From Monster, Performance Tanks

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the regression-testing dept.

Government 175

dcblogs writes "Complaints about the performance of USAjobs.gov, the government's central website for job applicants, are piling up after the U.S. took control this month of the site from Monster.com. The government's official Facebook page has seen nothing but negative comments from users about lag time, search engine failures, and other problems since the U.S. Office of Personnel Management built a new site. The government employs more than 2.6 million people. Linda Rix, the co-CEO of Avue Technologies Corp., a federal contractor who has tested the site, said this about the federal effort: 'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.'" They're working on it, though — one of their recent Facebook updates says, "Quick update: The three new blade servers have increased our capacity and the system is running smoothly."

cancel ×

175 comments

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

meaning of three new blades... (0)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800864)

Does that mean three racks of blade servers, or three blade units into a single enclosure?

By comparison, how many servers does Slashdot run on? I remember that something like twelve years ago it was only two...

Re:meaning of three new blades... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37800878)

Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

Re:meaning of three new blades... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800966)

Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

Then it's safe to say that Slashdot is very efficient...

Re:meaning of three new blades... (2)

PerlJedi (2406408) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801034)

Well when Taco left he took everything but the commordore 64s so he could run his 'services'.

Maybe but we are squeezing every last drop of compute power out of that commodore 64. :-)

Re:meaning of three new blades... (1)

A Big Gnu Thrush (12795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801138)

But they're really nice C64 blades.

Re:meaning of three new blades... (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801418)

That explains the lack of an edit button!

Re:meaning of three new blades... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801024)

It read pretty clearly to me, 3 blades - 3 blades should serve quite a few job seekers.

Re:meaning of three new blades... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801130)

In this day and age, you need at least 5 blades to get close....

Re:meaning of three new blades... (1)

Killer Instinct (851436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801246)

3 blades would be plenty. This aint Justin Biebers website were talking about.

Re:meaning of three new blades... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801260)

WOOSH!

Re:meaning of three new blades... (1)

Killer Instinct (851436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801370)

He doesnt shave. ;) W00SH !

Re:meaning of three new blades... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801908)

oh snap woosh rejected

sounds like the PHB cheaped out and it blowed in t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801070)

sounds like the PHB cheeped out and it blown in there face.

Government Efficiency! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37800866)

Another bureaucracy success! Let's put these guys in charge of your healthcare ASAP. They couldn't possibly make things worse.

Re:Government Efficiency! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801140)

If only more people could retire with a new government job we could simplify the economy, since all we would need is a printing press for printing money.

Government takes control of something (3, Insightful)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800870)

And it becomes slow, unresponsive, and costly. ...
Nope. No Surprises here.

Re:Government takes control of something (3, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801762)

Just so we're clear:

1) If Government 'outsources' its IT costs to a cloud service they're idiots wasting money who got conned into an unreliable and insecure buzzword.

2) If the Government brings tech back in house and doesn't use a cloud service they're slow, unresponsive and stupid.

I'm sorry, is there a third option that we're thinking they should adopt?

Re:Government takes control of something (2)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801900)

Yes, the third option is that they should run a good service cost effectively.

Re:Government takes control of something (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37802004)

3) Just don't do it. The original intent of the writers of the constitution was a "distributed" concept - limited government, and local solutions, to fit the local conditions.

Unfortunately, most people can't deal with the buzz of uncertainty. Some turn to God, others turn to Government. Those two groups fight each other, and the rest of us are fucked.

Can't wait.. (3, Insightful)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800892)

until these clowns are in charge of my health care. There's nothing bureaucracy can't screw up!

being sad about health care is a pre existing at l (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800940)

being sad about health care is a pre existing at lest there plan does not have any of that BS and give you choice or you want the McDonalds mini med that costs like $1000 year for a max pay out of $2000.

One of the problem with health care in this country is the lack of availability of insurance plans except by what the employers offers.

Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801232)

I'm guessing the government taught you to spell...

Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a (2)

zugmeister (1050414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801454)

There was once a show called "Benson" where the governor's teleprompter died just before the cameras went live, so he sat there for a long time just staring at the camera. One of the characters expressed concern that the sound was broken to which Benson replied that the sound was secondary, he was worried about the picture because the gov's lips were not moving. In this case, all the words in the post are spelled correctly but they are organized in such a manner that there does not appear to be a cogent argument. This is an excellent example of how proper use of spellcheck does not let you communicate clearly.

Re:being sad about health care is a pre existing a (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801540)

One of the problem with health care in this country is the lack of availability of insurance plans except by what the employers offers.

You're partially right.

The problem with health care in this country definitely involves insurance.

Why do we still use "insurance" for health care, anyway? Does any other developed country base distribution of health care on "insurance"?

Nobody in the US goes through life without using health care at some point. It's silly to have a system where every single dollar spent on health care has 20% taken off the top for "insurance".

And I certainly agree that getting health care should not have anything to do with your job, because when employers are involved with health care, because your employer really doesn't give a fuck about you, unless you work for your father. They wouldn't hesitate to watch you suffer in excruciating pain or die of mesothelioma at age 66 if it meant an additional .004% in profits. It's just not the way they're made.

Our health care system was a lot better when all hospitals were non-profit and doctors were part of the middle class. That's not to say that there have not been technological advances. But the system itself will only get worse to the extent that profit becomes the primary driving force behind supply.

Re:Can't wait.. (3, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800948)

Yeah, because Cigna, Kaiser and Blue Cross are all known for their tip top efficiency.

Re:Can't wait.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801018)

Which is why their competition does well. Who competes with the government?

Re:Can't wait.. (3, Informative)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801054)

Which is why their competition does well. Who competes with the government?

You are aware that the "competition" just resells packages through those companies, right?

Re:Can't wait.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801094)

I grew up on medicaid... I don't think you realize how bad the gov is at healthcare until you experience it.

I have flat feet.. forget the exact diagnoses, but about 10% of people have the same condition, and 1% of the condition and it's painful. I'm in that 1%

When I was about 10 years old, it was so painful that I could barely walk a city block without pain. The bone in my foot, because of calcium buildup around it, is as large as my ankle (in appearance, from the inside side of my foot.. it's right below my ankle).

So when I was a kid with medicaid, I could not go see a specialist unless I had a referral from a GP. The GP followed medicaid procedures, and had to get their own xrays (attempt diagnoses, treatment, etc) before he could make a referral (since specialist are expensive).. so between 10-12 years old, I got more than a dozen xrays of my feet (all on different occasions, in slightly difference positions). They couldn't see anything wrong, so they said I was making it up, and they wouldn't give a referral.

When after 2 years, I kept complaining, a doctor finally agreed to refer me to a specialist...The specialist diagnosed it within 15 mins. The xray had to be taken standing up (on a platform).. so there was no way the GP was going to get an xray of the problem.

So because of medicaid, I got exposed to who knows how much radiation before they would let someone competent diagnose my condition.

I have lots of stories like these from my childhood... I'm adamantly anti-gov-healthcare.

Re:Can't wait.. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801176)

So you prefer no-medicare to the two year delayed treatment?

Re:Can't wait.. (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801186)

That's because you were in a system that was built by committee and driven by the motive to not compete with private insurance companies. What you experienced is not the experience of the first world countries where all health care is simply paid for by the government.

Imagine if the courts ordered Microsoft to take over development of Open Office, with the contractual promise of keeping it open and free. Now imagine exactly what "features and fixes" Ballmer would add. You'd have to use the mouse to click the arrow buttons to move the cursor. Every third time you type the letter W, it would spit out a pair of Vs. He would have the number 1 removed from the character set. And it would install a dancing chair-throwing monkey screen saver that you couldn't disable. He'd do everything in his power to make sure that it was as awful as possible while still meeting the court-ordered requirements.

Replace Ballmer with Congress, and Open Office with Medicaid, and that's exactly what you got.

Now, take the private insurance companies away completely, and have all health care directly paid by the government. You get adequate care and treatment. You won't get the three-CAT-scan overkill that your current doctors love to bill to your insurers, but adequate and appropriate care. The only drawback is the hit to the economy when you stop shoveling truckloads of money into the insurance company vaults, and they have to fire their soon-to-be-outsourced-anyway data entry people. And the country clubs will have fewer paying members.

So stop bitching about the Republican scare-ware version of government run health care. Real government run health care is a hell of a lot better than the current insurance scams, and a hell of a lot cheaper.

Re:Can't wait.. (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801282)

excellent post

"The key thing to remember, always, is what the federal government does: it is basically an insurance company for old people that also has an army." - Krugman

Re:Can't wait.. (1)

uncqual (836337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801736)

You get adequate care and treatment.

One can hope so.

Of course, some agency like NICE [nice.org.uk] will decide for you what is cost effective. They decided that a "quality adjusted life year" was worth something like $45,500 [nytimes.com] in 2008 (the quality adjustment is to place less value on a year of life which is diminished by pain or the like). Attempts to do this in the US are met with screams of protest. Although, government agencies in the US, such as the EPA and state highway agencies, do regularly put a financial value on a year of life when making decisions and oddly this doesn't invoke much outrage (perhaps because in the case of the EPA it's generally impossible to prove that the lack of a regulation caused a particular disease or death and in the case of the highway agencies, one assumes they won't be the one to run off the cliff because there's no guardrail). However, Medicare is currently not allowed to consider price in determining what treatments will be covered.

Some of the "overkill" resulting in higher costs in the US system is the result of the lack of rationing.

Similarly, some of the "poorer outcomes" are the result of lack of such rationing - for example because sicker people in the US patients sometimes get treatment which would be denied in some single payer systems (this is true, for example, in end stage renal disease [aakp.org] and may be true in the case of extremely premature babies).

The differences in attitudes between the general populace in the US with regards to medical care and some other "first world" countries is quite surprising. For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months. Some years ago I was in the UK talking to a vendor rep over dinner and she mentioned that she would be unavailable for a couple weeks due to upcoming surgery (I gathered it was some sort of abdominal surgery and was elective in its timing -- I can only guess what it might have been but I suspect 1/2 the population couldn't even have had this surgery because they lack the necessary parts) and I commented something like "Well, at least you don't have to pay for it due to your government healthcare system" and she gave me a look of shock and said something like "Oh, no - no one who can avoid it has this done in the government system -- I carry private insurance for things like this". She was a very "middle class" person who was on the marketing/sales side and the company she represented was obviously not a "big bucks" vendor. I don't know if this was common or still is, but it surprised me quite a bit.

Re:Can't wait.. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801862)

For example, a middle class person in the US who would benefit from hip replacement to reduce pain would expect to have the surgery (assuming they are in a condition to have it) in weeks while it's typical to wait for many months in Canada -- few middle class Americans I know would find this acceptable. When talking to someone from Canada not too long ago, I was quite surprised they were fine with the notion of living in unnecessary pain for six extra months.

We're not really "fine with it" and we've been trying to improve the wait times situation for awhile now. It's just that any correction to the main problem (a shortage of the appropriate doctors and surgeons) takes a long damn time to have any effect.

We are making progress here in Saskatchewan (Previously, we were the 2nd worst province for surgical wait times). The plan is to get joint replacement wait times down to 3 months maximum by 2014.

Re:Can't wait.. (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801844)

As a foreigner now living in U.S., I have to admit that you guys really got some pretty crappy government services - they're almost as bureaucratized and inefficient as my home country (Russia) in many respects, and it's definitely not what I expected from a first world country. I really thought most of American rants about government inefficiency is just that, rants, but now I see that there is a grain of truth to it. I'm not just talking about medicare here (no personal experience with that, in any case) but pretty much anything that involves seeing a government official.

That said, I also had a chance to compare it with some other first world countries, notably Canada and New Zealand - and, yes, it's possible to do this kind of thing right, or at least much better. Case in point: in Canada, it took me exactly one day - or, to be more specific, about 2 hours in the queue and then about 15 minutes of filling in the forms - to get SIN, the local SSN equivalent. That was, IIRC, on my third day there. In U.S., it took them almost a month to give me SSN, and I only found out after waiting in a line for quite a while that they "don't have the immigration data from CBP in our database yet - you should try again in two or three weeks" (and second time I tried, they still didn't have it). Two government services have distinct databases that only sync monthly - WTF? And why do I have to regularly come see them in person to hear that, no, they still can't help me?

It seems to me that the situation in U.S. resembles vicious circle quite a lot - people pretty much expect government to suck at everything (other than possibly defense) by default, and that mentality is so pervasive that it effectively sets the standard under which government services operate. Furthermore, a lot of people use it as an excuse to further cut funding to existing programs, or even scrap them altogether, since "private is better" - which further lowers the standards.

Ultimately, you get what you 1) ask for, and 2) pay for. With respect to your government, #1 means that you have to stop assuming that it always sucks at whatever it does, and treat every case of government inefficiency as a bug in the system that needs a specific fix - not a reason to abandon that system altogether. #2 means that you have to give it decent funding, proportionate to expected (per #1, rather than the current state of affairs) efficiency and usefulness.

Re:Can't wait.. (5, Informative)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801238)

my dad was in the Airforce, we had TriCare, and I got medical coverage on base.

Government healthcare also can kick ass sometimes when they're tasked to do it right.

Re:Can't wait.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801480)

So when I was a kid with medicaid, I could not go see a specialist unless I had a referral from a GP. The GP followed medicaid procedures, and had to get their own xrays (attempt diagnoses, treatment, etc) before he could make a referral (since specialist are expensive).

Now that you're grown up, you do realize that half the insurance companies out there work exactly the same way, don't you? The government doesn't have a monopoly on corner-cutters.

Re:Can't wait.. (2)

mcl630 (1839996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801558)

Generally speaking, private health insurance companies also require referrals to see a specialist.

It sucks that you went through this, especially as a child with no control over the situation, but would you have preferred no care at all, which is what you would have gotten if medicaid didn't exist?

Re:Can't wait.. (0)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801162)

As far as I know, my whole family (including grandparents on both sides, and aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) are all on Kaiser and I haven't heard a single awful story about them. My grandfather had 3 heart attacks in 3 years and Kaiser helped him get better every time... then he had a massive stroke and Kaiser helped him learn to talk again (at age 84) until Alzheimer's and more strokes got the best of him and he died early this year.

I'm on Cigna because my employer is retarded (you can choose Cigna or Kaiser in Southern California, but you're stuck with Cigna in Norcal for some dumb reason) and so far they've been less than helpful... so I agree with you on that one. But I can't imagine that a government medical system would ever be as good as Kaiser.

Re:Can't wait.. (1, Offtopic)

jittles (1613415) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801680)

Well consider yourself lucky. I have a nephew on Kaiser. He was apparently born with a heart defect that manifested itself around his 1st birthday. Kaiser does not have a specialist who is licensed and board certified to perform heart surgery on a child under 2 years old. So, rather than pay the cost to have him get the surgery the acknowledge he will definitely need, they make him stay in the hospital for 5 weeks while they try various medicines that are somewhat dangerous to take, until they found a medicine that would keep the problem under control until he is old enough for a Kaiser doctor to perform the surgery. I'm glad I don't have Kaiser..

Re:Can't wait.. (1, Offtopic)

stephathome (1862868) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801810)

My son needed a surgery for craniosynostosis, that would be best performed at age 3 months. My husband was just in the process of changing insurance due to a new job, and we had chosen Kaiser until the pediatrician warned us that Kaiser didn't have a surgeon qualified to do that surgery, that we'd have to wait until he was 6 months and have a much riskier surgery. Fortunately, the paperwork hadn't gone through, so we made some urgent changes and got Blue Shield. The surgeon covered by them happened to be the one who pioneered the endoscopic version of the surgery my son needed.

This surgery meant a significantly shorter recovery time, and no blood transfusion. One night in the hospital was required, a second allowed at my request. The version for six months olds would have required a blood transfusion, much more time in the hospital and a more difficult recovery. I'm ecstatic we didn't go Kaiser.

Re:Can't wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37802056)

Kaiser seems to be run very differently in various regions. Kaiser of Northern California I could (and do) trust with my life. They're amazingly efficient and helpful. But Kaiser in Colorado, I would avoid like Ebola. Can't figure out the difference.

Re:Can't wait.. (0)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801650)

Kaiser is considered one of the better health insurance companies in the US (this from people who deal with health plans for a living) and their plans in fact cost less than those of competitors. So yes, they're very efficient.

Plus they actually give a damn about preventive care.

Why is this flamebait? (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801292)

The poster has a valid point. In America, health care is a consumer service. For all of our complaints, were health care to be turned over to a federal bureaucracy, it would almost certainly get worse.

Re:Why is this flamebait? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801590)

It's flamebait because there isn't an "I disagree" option. I accepted the karma burn when I posted it. Sometimes the truth hurts. In this case it's gonna hurt a lot when people find out just how screwed we are when the realities of rationed health care hit home.

Re:Can't wait.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801738)

There is no way to successfully run a large scale organization without bureaucracy. Rules allow for consistent processes and are used by the private sector just as much as public. The difference between a burger restaurant that becomes McDonalds and one that stays a single restaurant is bureaucracy.

personnel management agency = HR (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800910)

personnel management agency = HR

And HR does not get IT that much and hiring based on key words does not help.

Re:personnel management agency = HR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801080)

Just say that you're a registered voting Democrat on your resume'. HR will certainly get your foot in the door for a chance to interview. When management shakes your hand, tell him/her you're a Republican and you lied to HR just to get the chance. They will laugh and be pleased at just how smart you really are. Welcome to the team!

Both HR and managers are fucking idiots. But at least I helped you fast-track to a new job. Yes? You can thank me later.

Re:personnel management agency = HR (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801266)

This is purely anecdotal, but most of the feds I work with are Republican or independant and right leaning. Kinda seems strange voting against your own financial interests, but whatever.

Re:personnel management agency = HR (2)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801548)

Depends entirely on which department they're in. DHHS people will be bluer than 15 year-old teenager's balls on homecoming, DOD and DOE people will frequently be bible thumping fundamentalists (based on my personal experiences at LANL anyway).

Re:personnel management agency = HR (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801554)

Care to provide some citations? I remember the DoJ under W having something of a scandal when some of the people doing the hiring were caught using political litmus tests.

Re:personnel management agency = HR (3)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801098)

Don't forget the requirement to have 20+ years of Java experience (or whatever that number was back when they were just pulling numbers out of their asses.).

Re:personnel management agency = HR (1)

todrules (882424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801134)

'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.'

From the quote above, it sounds like they actually had the HR people building the website.

It really doesn't matter what kind of company it is. It could be a furniture, clothing, or car company. They can all have good websites. You hire the people to do the job for you.

Queue the negative comments (3, Insightful)

ExtremeSupreme (2480708) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800936)

Oh look at those idiots in govt.... with their job security, and their benefits, and their pension... clearly only the stupid people are the ones that apply to govt jobs! there's no way it's the most clever of us who work in govt...

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801016)

Grammer Natzi sez: It's Cue, not Queue.

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

ExtremeSupreme (2480708) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801026)

Huh. How about that. Thanks!

Re:Queue the negative comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801096)

Unless of course he meant "line up the negative comments".

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801126)

And you would be wrong. Queue is a perfectly acceptable English word, derived from the French word for "tail".

Re:Queue the negative comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801178)

Shampoo is also a perfectly acceptable English word, and -- much like queue -- it is not the correct one to convey what he wishes to convey.

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801872)

shampoo owns your post!
and this one too!

Cheers!

Re:Queue the negative comments (2, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801504)

And you would be wrong. Queue is a perfectly acceptable English word, derived from the French word for "tail".

And you would be wrong. The idiom is "cue", not "queue", though both happen to work depending on how flexible one is on the meaning.

Given this is supposedly (though rarely actually) a technology discussion site, I think "queue" in this context could be clever. I doubt it was meant as such, however.

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801280)

Unless he is rather cleverly suggesting that he expects a great many negative comments and would like the process to be orderly.

Re:Queue the negative comments (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801512)

I considered that, but there was nothing in the post to suggest anything other than a simple phonetic transposition of the word "Cue" which he likely learned verbally in context, with the word Queue which he likely learned written on a programming exam.

Scaling is hard (2)

kqs (1038910) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800986)

No surprise. Everyone always thinks that scaling is easy, and then spends months dealing with a long series of choke points and cache overflows. This is bearable if you can scale slowly, but not if all the traffic Is dumped on you from day one.

The question is, will it still suck in three months? Will their IT folks learn?

Re:Scaling is hard (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801994)

No surprise. Everyone always thinks that scaling is easy, and then spends months dealing with a long series of choke points and cache overflows. This is bearable if you can scale slowly, but not if all the traffic Is dumped on you from day one.

The question is, will it still suck in three months? Will their IT folks learn?

The scaling part was easy. They slapped in some blades and expanded the cluster.

What they goofed on was capacity planning. The Navy stopped using their CHART system and shifted over to using USAJobs. I think some other agencies standardized on using USAJobs at the same time as well. So the shear number of job listing went way up. Double the listing translates into much more than double the site visits.

Three? (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37800992)

THREE!?

Re:Three? (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801014)

Hey, it's better than the one blade server they were using. I bet they were creating VMs on it to act as redundant nodes.

Re:Three? (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801182)

They should skip the VMs and just paint racing stripes on their server racks... I hear that will increase clock speeds by up to 10MHz!

Re:Three? (3, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801566)

Skip the racing stripes, speed holes are where it's at.

ok i'll say it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37800996)

everything our Gov't tried to do tanks dong.

Does anyone else not care? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801004)

Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.

What I read: Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.

Wake me when /. has some real news.

Re:Does anyone else not care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801112)

Wake me when /. has some real news.

You're planning to go to sleep forever?

Re:Does anyone else not care? (2)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801234)

When will /. have a like/+1 button on posts. Don't adjust moderation on it but it'll at least let people 'agree' if not just mark something they like. This being one I'd like...

Re:Does anyone else not care? (1)

me at werk (836328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801486)

reddit / hacker news exist.

Re:Does anyone else not care? (5, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801748)

When will /. have a like/+1 button on posts.

Hopefully never. One of the best things about /. is its willingness to abstain from such silly trends.

There is no God. . . 153,678 people liked this post.

Microsoft is cool. . . 0 people liked this post.

We don't need those buttons, popular opinions on /. are well known to anyone who has visited here more than a couple times.

"Some organization" (0)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801256)

Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.

What I read: Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.

Wake me when /. has some real news.

Except that it wasn't just "some organization". It was the government. The only butt-hurt here seems to be your anger at people pointing out the obvious and saying "after the government took it over, it sucked".

Re:Does anyone else not care? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801268)

Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.

Too bad you didn't read the article. Or the Facebook page.

Even with the site up and running as fast as it can, the UI is still horrible and nearly unusable. It's buggy as hell, where people searching USAjobs for "DE" jobs finding jobs in Germany and not Delaware. Despite this being a website for US jobs.

And if you look at the Facebook page right now you will notice that the site isn't working for the majority of people. They're getting stuck in endless auto-reply email loops, or getting logged out in the middle of using the site, or having job postings being randomly deleted, or the search failing, all happening after they "fixed" the servers.

So, sorry, this is not a "non-story." This is yet another instance of government proving that where private enterprise can, public government simply cannot.

Re:Does anyone else not care? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801496)

I agree.
I typically browse usajobs.gov and the site was terrible before. You couldn't press your back button, it would nag you to use IE6, the search sucked, selecting options was futile and the performance was terrible.

The new site is ten times better. Anyone that thinks the old site was better is delusional or being paid by Monster.

Sour Grapes - The GRAVY TRAIN IS OVER for Monster. (5, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801708)

Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.

Yes indeed. And, the Monster site was a serious piece of shit itself.

Here's the thing: Uncle Sam *just recently* took it back, we should EXPECT some bumps in the process. This is to be expected.

Most people here, not being gov employees probably haven't experienced what USA Jobs replaced. Essentially, each arm of the government had their own site for job seekers.

I can only tell you about about the Air Force site that Monster's USA Jobs replaced... The Air Force site was easy to navigate and easy to apply for jobs. Tracking your progress in the process was very straight forward.

Before I accepted my current Air Force position, I applied for perhaps a dozen different jobs, was called back for telephone interviews on perhaps half, and was able to track my progress with all - such as the reason for being passed over (important information for a job seeker).

The Monster experience was beyond convoluted to the point that I simply gave up trying to find and apply for jobs. Out of the 30 or 40 I applied for, I never got any call-backs, and it was impossible to track progress or determine reasons for for being passed over. It was just a huge waste of time.

Seriously folks, we all KNOW how Monster works. This "story" is just sour grapes from Monster for losing a fucking GRAVY TRAIN of a contract.

DISCLAIMER: I am a career Civil Servant with the Department of Defense.

Hmm? TSA or Obamacare? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801050)

Do I want to be modded up, or down?

Compare goverment fuckup to the TSA, and get modded up! Yay.

Point out that the /crowd that hates the US government in all other ways salivates over that same government being put in charge of the US health care sysytem, and get modded down?

What a dilemma!

Gotta love /tard group-feeling. It sure ain't group-THINK.

Re:Hmm? TSA or Obamacare? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801406)

Totally agree. My latest mod-down was this: "If only more people could retire with a new government job we could simplify the economy, since all we would need is a printing press for printing money."

Too much g-man moderation obviously.

Re:Hmm? TSA or Obamacare? (5, Insightful)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801578)

The US government will never be put in charge of the US health care system. That was the whole take-away from the debate over health care law, remember? The bill that actually passed sets up a MARKETPLACE for PRIVATE INSURERS to SELL INSURANCE PRIVATELY to PEOPLE . That sounds like a conservative, market-based approach to me. That's probably because, oh wait, it is one - it's nearly identical to the system that Mitt Romney, a conservative Republican, put in place in Massachusetts, which, being identical, was also a conservative, market-based approach to universal health care. Mittens is now running away from his own law because 1) Obama passed a similar law 2) the crazy people who have taken over the Republican party can't even understand that, if they actually knew what their own principles were, THEY WOULD AGREE WITH IT. But for now their overriding, unthinking principle seems to be: We hate Obama, and if Obama did something, we hate that too.

I'm tired of know-nothing tea partiers trolling on this site. If you know nothing about something, try not to comment on it.

omg is that enuf (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801144)

there just ain't no denyin' it.
did you expect anything other than?

Incomplete Article (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801210)

To be fair, USAJobs.gov's performance also sucked when monster ran it.

Fuck Everything... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801336)

We're Doing Five Blades

USAJobs filter (3, Interesting)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801436)

Their job filter sucks. I know someone that was a government contractor and the people he worked for wanted to hire him as a federal employee. So they set up a listing that was well defined to fit his skills. He submitted his application but couldn't make it through the filter so he couldn't be hired.

I saw an opening for a job and I knew the people that put the request in. I just copied and pasted the entire job requirement and description under other information and I sailed past the filter. When I was interviewed they thought it was a computer errror that caused the ad to print at the end of my application. I told them the truth and they laughed and I got the job.

Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate you? (2)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801450)

The GOP's stated policy is that anyone working for the federal government is shit and deserves pay cuts.
The GOP thinks that federal government employee salaries are not based on competitive pay. I mean, normally if a job pays a certain amount you will get applicants who would be willing to work for that pay .. and therefore you'd get competitive applicants who are worth that much. If I offered a job that pays 1 million, presumably I'd get applicants who are worth around that .. yes sure along with people worth $10K .. but the point is the fed gov salaries are advertised and people who are working in only slightly less paying jobs looking for an upgrade will switch to it .. meaning if they paid less .. they'll get less qualified/competent applicants.

Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801518)

Conservatives run on a platform of government failure, then once elected, set about proving it to be true.

Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37802006)

Conservatives run on a platform of government failure, then once elected, set about proving it to be true.

If only (Dem primary) voters realized back in 2008 that Obama was a conservative...

Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801662)

Link?

Re:Why work for the fed gov if Republicans hate yo (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801694)

I don't think the GOP is really against government, they're just against functional government. If someone brought a bill to congress that proposed slashing all those pointless "Homeland Security" positions that were created post-9/11 the GOP would be quick to oppose (and unfortunately so would most Dems).

Regarding the less pay part: there are perks that government employees get that can make it worth it. Vacation, pension, holidays, job security. Would you rather a high salary job with some tech startup that's the pet project of a couple VCs (and will require many hours) or a government job that pays half as much? I would guess that an unrooted bachelor would be inclined to go with the startup whereas a family man would lean towards the government job. A lot of times if you break it down to dollars per hour the government job will pay as much or more.

I do agree that the GOP's agenda of slashing government pay/benefits can only be detrimental, but I do think the government can get away with paying less provided the benefits balance it out.

There is no one else on this planet (2)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801490)

'They are a personnel management agency, they are not a technology company, and this clearly demonstrates that they don't have the technology skills to be able to do this.' Pure FUD. If the problem was that all the toilets were always blocked up, you wouldn't accept an excuse that the company is clearly not a plumbing company, and doesn't have the skills to manage basic plumbing. That could be resolved with a simple phone call to folks that do actually have some experience with that field. Now, if you want to say that the management is too drooling stupid to figure that out... well, it's the Government, so that's not entirely implausible, but that's an entirely different statement than what has been made.

This can't be true (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801494)

The Government can do everything the private sector does, with unparalleled efficiency and at a fraction of the cost.

Monster isn't doing it anymore! Yay! (5, Informative)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801570)

The old site was one of the worst job sites on the internet. I'm not sure if it's any better, but I don't think it could have gotten worse.

Facebook page? (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801608)

Aside from my bafflement that the government leased one of its domains out to monster.com, the thing that stuck me as most odd about this is that the government has a Facebook page. Why?

It's getting to the point where abstaining from Facebook ostracizes one from society. It's like the internet's turning into AOL all over again, but worse.

Wait can that really happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37802060)

People are turning into ostriches?

Not surprised in the least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801732)

I work as a contractor doing work for OPM (I won't specify which company, don't ask). I'll say right now that their entire IT team needs to be canned given how much downtime we see. They do unforgivable things such as live and on the fly updates to major systems with little to no testing. The internal applications and intranet sites are more broken than the external ones.

Socialism doesn't work! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801786)

I just wanted to see how far I could get modded down.

The commies come out in force when government bureaucracy is proven inefficient!

That is the fed govn for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37801828)

As a federal employee, our internal websites are HORRIBLE for speed, search, lag time, etc. While I don't work for OPM, I experience errors multiple times a day trying to load websites on my work computer. IT for the federal government is a joke.

on the other hand, outsorcing didn't work well (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 2 years ago | (#37801870)

Gov't outsourced federal student loan processing to private company, and that didn't work well either. Auto-pay didn't work for days, so many had "payment late" notices. site was unusable for a week.
http://consumerist.com/2011/10/dept-of-educations-new-site-giving-headaches-to-folks-with-student-loans.html [consumerist.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>