![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Daily rant
Today, at work, we had a disk fail on one of our storage arrays.
Normally this is irritating, but minor - engineer is dispatched with new disk to swap it.
Not today it seems. No, today our problem management team would not raise an incident for me - there was no user impact, because we have a resilient system, therefore it was not acceptable for them to fix it based on an incident, and a retroactive change. I would therefore have to raise an emergency change.
Well, this first of all pissed me off. I'm not changing anything, I'm just getting a malfunctioning part swapped out. I'm still pretty marginal on whether that should be considered a _change_ at all, because nothing is, in fact, changing.
So anyway. After ... getting a bit wound up by the fact that it was acceptable for us (this was internally) to stonewall replacing some of our customers hardware that we _knew_ had a fault, I spoke to someone in our customer's team, to find out ... quite why they thought that was a good idea.
It seems they didn't, and they were fine with the concept of 'just swap the damn disk, before another one burns out'.
But anyway, I finally cracked and started filling our emergency change form - resisting the urge to be massively sarcastic when answering the 'why can your change not be done as part of a planned release process' (Because I'm not psychic), and 'please explain in non technical terms what you're doing' and 'what is your justification for dispensation from the testing process' and a whole selection of asnine little questions.
My emergency change was rejected, because there wasn't enough time to process it between when I submitted it (about 16:00, admittedly) and when I'd specified for it to start - 09:00 tomorrow.
Now, we have a really rather robust storage system, and it actually is the case that this disk is not really a problem - we've several hot spares, which will function just fine, even after several drives go 'pop'.
But that's not the point. It's not hard, when you have a 4 hour support agreement with a vendor, which costs lots of money, to get this done. It's only when you involve muppets, that it's turned an incident that should have a quick resolution, into what can only be described as the IT equivalent of the benny hill show.
Normally this is irritating, but minor - engineer is dispatched with new disk to swap it.
Not today it seems. No, today our problem management team would not raise an incident for me - there was no user impact, because we have a resilient system, therefore it was not acceptable for them to fix it based on an incident, and a retroactive change. I would therefore have to raise an emergency change.
Well, this first of all pissed me off. I'm not changing anything, I'm just getting a malfunctioning part swapped out. I'm still pretty marginal on whether that should be considered a _change_ at all, because nothing is, in fact, changing.
So anyway. After ... getting a bit wound up by the fact that it was acceptable for us (this was internally) to stonewall replacing some of our customers hardware that we _knew_ had a fault, I spoke to someone in our customer's team, to find out ... quite why they thought that was a good idea.
It seems they didn't, and they were fine with the concept of 'just swap the damn disk, before another one burns out'.
But anyway, I finally cracked and started filling our emergency change form - resisting the urge to be massively sarcastic when answering the 'why can your change not be done as part of a planned release process' (Because I'm not psychic), and 'please explain in non technical terms what you're doing' and 'what is your justification for dispensation from the testing process' and a whole selection of asnine little questions.
My emergency change was rejected, because there wasn't enough time to process it between when I submitted it (about 16:00, admittedly) and when I'd specified for it to start - 09:00 tomorrow.
Now, we have a really rather robust storage system, and it actually is the case that this disk is not really a problem - we've several hot spares, which will function just fine, even after several drives go 'pop'.
But that's not the point. It's not hard, when you have a 4 hour support agreement with a vendor, which costs lots of money, to get this done. It's only when you involve muppets, that it's turned an incident that should have a quick resolution, into what can only be described as the IT equivalent of the benny hill show.
no subject
no subject
But then got bored, and was still angry already.
no subject
Wow, that takes a Special form of Muppetry.
Chances you get in trouble from talking to the customer direct: High...
no subject
no subject
no subject
cue ubiquitous musical accompaniment?