On 23-1-2012 11:38, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 6:05 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> And also I'm assuming this is not cheap, so management do not want.
>>>
>>> Making something truly zero down-time is exceedingly expensive.
>>
>> Yeah, reducing down-time isn't usually too bad, but /zero/ down-time
>> requires going to absurd lengths.
>
> When I was stationed at Onizuka AFB, California (the Blue Cube, for
> those who live or work near the south end of the San Francisco Bay), we
> had two large SATCOM dishes, called Sun East and Sun West.
>
> One chronic problem was that getting downtime for preventive maintenance
> was as difficult as pulling gold teeth from a chicken. The user
> community (who was and always will be better connected than the
> maintenance community) were as stubborn as mules about allowing any
> downtime for any reason.
>
> "Hey, what if we took each dish down, once every six months, and do all
> of the preventive maintenance specified in the technical orders?"
>
> "No, no, we need those dishes up 24/7. Denied."
>
> You'll never guess what the result was.

Difficult.
my first guess would be that after 9-12 months the system failed for 
more than twice the time of the provocative maintenance.
but...
you said I couldn't guess. so that is not what happened.
ergo, the system was reliably working for 10 years until it was replaced 
by a better system with a small overlap in time.
...
No that can not be right, because if that was the case I guessed it, and 
I couldn't.
...
but, but, that would be true of every other guess...
...
...
Ah, I got it, I can not *guess* it, therefore I must *know* the answer: 
After 9-12 months the system failed for more than twice the time of the 
provocative maintenance.



-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message