On 1/23/2012 3:25 PM, andrel wrote:
> 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.

While I was stationed there the systems were down around 5% to 10% of 
the time.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message