Message-ID: <28349472.1075858756592.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: sally.beck@enron.com
To: jenny.rub@enron.com
Subject: In the spirit of cooperation...
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Beck, Sally </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=SBECK>
X-To: Rub, Jenny </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jrub>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \SBECK (Non-Privileged)\Sent Items
X-Origin: Beck-S
X-FileName: SBECK (Non-Privileged).pst

John is keeping us updated on Unify production problems, which unfortunatel=
y occur rather frequently.  When he cited the reason for performance issues=
 in his orginal e-mail message below, I asked him whether or not the Unify =
team was aware ahead of time that the server resynchronization was being ha=
ndled during normal business hours.  Here is his response.  I bring this to=
 your attention not to create an issue, but rather to solve one.  I know th=
at everyone is incredibly busy, but with so many interdepencies here we hav=
e to stay closely coordinated.  I know that EOL has a dedicated member of y=
our team who is always on point and knowledgeable about infrastructure issu=
es that could or do touch EOL.  Is there anyone assigned from your team for=
 a similar role with our critical operating systems?  Because of nomination=
 deadlines and the exchange of information with external parties for Unify,=
 it can create real exposure (dollar exposure and PR exposure) if Unify's p=
erformance is impaired.  Let me know if you can assign someone from the inf=
rastructure team that can wear the responsiblity of staying in step with Un=
ify.  Thanks.  --Sally=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Warner , John=20
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2001 9:20 AM
To: Beck, Sally
Subject: RE: Unify Operational Status


Unfortunately, we didn't get a notification - we played detective.
=20
In their defense, they had tried to do the resynchronization after-hours a =
couple of times and it failed, so they were somewhat desperate to get this =
done.  Nonetheless, a phone call should have been made to our team in advan=
ce.
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Beck, Sally=20
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 9:00 AM
To: Warner , John=20
Subject: FW: Unify Operational Status
=20
Thanks for the updates.  When we had the problem with the server resynchron=
ization, did someone from the Infrastructure team alert you ahead of time t=
hat they were going to do this during normal business hours, or did you hav=
e to be the detective to determine the cause once the problem was at hand. =
 Let me know. Thanks. --Sally=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Warner , John=20
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:01 PM
To: Rao, Ramesh; Beck, Sally; Piper, Greg; Perlman, Beth; Pena, Matt; Hall,=
 Bob M; Superty, Robert; Pickering, Mark
Subject: Unify Operational Status
Here is a summary of Unify operations for today.  My plan was to provide th=
ese reports to this audience through the end of this week, and then pick up=
 again during next bid week.  I'll be glad to continue this type of reporti=
ng moving forward, please let me know if you are interested.  Alternatively=
, I could move to a weekly reporting of issues, and/or change the audience =
of this report.  Your feedback on the matter is appreciated.
=20
Summary of 9/28:
?         Heavy activity in the Gas system, especially in the afternoon.  S=
ystem performance dropped during the afternoon, but no downtime was experie=
nced.=20
?         At just after 3:00 pm, a network server experienced problems and =
as a result one of our EDI servers was unable to accept new files.  No EDI =
files could be sent to our hub as a result.  As it turns out, the Infrastru=
cture team was in the process of performing a critical re-synchronization o=
n that server, and the server was unable to write new data to disk for over=
 an hour (during re-synchronization this window is typically just a few min=
utes).  Infrastructure typically conducts resynchronizations after-hours, b=
ut resynchronization had failed on this box on several prior attempts, so t=
he issue had become critical.  At 4:26 pm, the re-synchronization completed=
 and all EDI files in the queue were processed normally, and our 5:00 pm in=
traday nom deadline was met. =20
Action Items:
o        The network servers referenced are to be decommissioned on October=
 5th, and will be replaced with newer more reliable servers.  This is part =
of a planned project within the Infrastructure team.=20
o        I have discussed the issue with the Infrastructure team and commun=
icated our various intra-day processing deadlines.  They have committed to =
notifying the Unify team in the event future emergency-type maintenance is =
required during business hours.=20
?         On the Power side, we have caught up on all of our processing tha=
t was delayed as a result of yesterday's outage. =20
=20
