"Brian Gregory" <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote in message news:it93tmF4hehU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> What amazing weird and wonderful equipment takes this long to repair or
> replace? Most of the news stories just say "servers" were damaged.

If they are dealing purely with vibration-induced damage from a
rapid gas discharge, then I can understand how mechanical hard
drives would be damaged by this, but shouldn't all other components
in the servers have survived?

Hard drives can easily be replaced, and for years now, keeping full
and synchronised backups of important data at a second location has
been standard practice.
Backup images for the OS installations on each of the servers are
typically kept as well.

So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives, restoring
the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
backups?

Alexander wrote:

> So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives, restoring
> the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
> programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
> backups?

How many thousand hard drives do you think it might involve?

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:ite21oF30qhU1@mid.individual.net...
> Alexander wrote:
>
>> So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives, restoring
>> the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
>> programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
>> backups?
>
> How many thousand hard drives do you think it might involve?

Backup procedures are scaled accordingly.
You don't just say "Oh golly, well we've got so much data now,
we'll have to stop doing backups, cause it's too much work".

On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
drives, out of interest?

Alexander wrote:

> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
> drives, out of interest?

I don't know whether the servers that got trashed only hold e.g. the programmes
and adverts for the coming week's playout, or if they hold every episode of
every C4, E4, film4, more4, s4c programme they've ever made, ready to play, all
at much greater bandwidth than a humax!

On 21/10/2021 19:04, Jeff Layman wrote:

>> I had to retire at 62 to look after my wife. I was really worried about
>> money but there wasn't a problem in fact. I've really enjoyed being
>> retired (except for her illness and death, and my illnesses, of course).
>
> I remember reading your posts about your wife's (Hils?) poor health.
> Within a few months of me retiring, my wife and I were helping to look
> after her mother, and after she'd died we were looking after her father.
> Money wasn't an important issue - we never had the time to spend it
> anyway! As things worked out I would never had had the time to work, so
> the retirement was very timely.
>

Life never quite turns out the way you expect.

Bill

On 21/10/2021 22:05, Alexander wrote:
> "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:ite21oF30qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Alexander wrote:
>>
>>> So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives, restoring
>>> the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
>>> programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
>>> backups?
>> How many thousand hard drives do you think it might involve?
> Backup procedures are scaled accordingly.
> You don't just say "Oh golly, well we've got so much data now,
> we'll have to stop doing backups, cause it's too much work".
>
> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
> drives, out of interest?
>
Red Bee's equipment room is over two hundred 45RU racks, there's a lot
of kit in there.

On 21/10/2021 22:24, Andy Burns wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
>
>> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
>> drives, out of interest?
>
> I don't know whether the servers that got trashed only hold e.g. the
> programmes and adverts for the coming week's playout, or if they hold
> every episode of every C4, E4, film4, more4, s4c programme they've
> ever made, ready to play, all at much greater bandwidth than a humax!
An AS-11 file (the UK standard playout format) rule of thumb size is
(for HD) 1GB per minute of programme.

On 22/10/2021 07:24, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 21/10/2021 22:05, Alexander wrote:
>> "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ite21oF30qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Alexander wrote:
>>>
>>>> So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives,
>>>> restoring
>>>> the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
>>>> programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
>>>> backups?
>>> How many thousand hard drives do you think it might involve?
>> Backup procedures are scaled accordingly.
>> You don't just say "Oh golly, well we've got so much data now,
>> we'll have to stop doing backups, cause it's too much work".
>>
>> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
>> drives, out of interest?
>>
> Red Bee's equipment room is over two hundred 45RU racks, there's a lot
> of kit in there.
>

I'd thought they might also be fitting an entirely new fire suppression
system rather than just going for a re-gas of what was there :)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message news:skm48f$r6q$1@dont-email.me...
> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I am given to understand that they are saying that the Audio description
>> will be mostly missing for some weeks, until they can get a permanent fix
>> to
>> the ad hoc distribution.
>> However only a couple of nights ago, I heard AD on CH4, so wondered if
>> there are some transmitters affected and some not. I am served by Crystal
>> Palace.
>> It is true that More 4 is still in drainpipe sound mode but I do not
>> know
>> enough about what their other channels do in AD to know if they are
>> affected.
>> It does seem strange to me, that as other broadcasters seem to have
>> mostly
>> coped, why CH4 cannot. Is Freesat and Virgin and online affected as
>> well? I
>> guess it depends where they get the feed from.
>> Once again it shows how important blind peoples needs are considered to
>> be
>> when the chips are down, they just dump us.
>> Brian
>>
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58965380
>
> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>
> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf or
> have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because the
> system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>
> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing community
> being allowed to go on for so long.
>
> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and rely
> on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure that
> affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
> long....
>
> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?

without monetary loss all you can achieve is specific performance

And that will almost certainly arrive long before you get your day in court

On 22/10/2021 11:16, tim... wrote:
> without monetary loss all you can achieve is specific performance
>
> And that will almost certainly arrive long before you get your day in court

How many stenographers are there in the UK? Could they have hired all
available ones and have them live subtitling? The systems are not
perfect but I think most deaf people would be prepared to accept that as
a temporary solution.

On 22/10/2021 07:48, Robin wrote:
> On 22/10/2021 07:24, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 21/10/2021 22:05, Alexander wrote:
>>> "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ite21oF30qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Alexander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So why wasn't it just a case of replacing all the hard drives,
>>>>> restoring
>>>>> the OS on each from backup images, and then restoring the current
>>>>> programme data (including subtitles, AD etc), from the synchronised
>>>>> backups?
>>>> How many thousand hard drives do you think it might involve?
>>> Backup procedures are scaled accordingly.
>>> You don't just say "Oh golly, well we've got so much data now,
>>> we'll have to stop doing backups, cause it's too much work".
>>>
>>> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
>>> drives, out of interest?
>>>
>> Red Bee's equipment room is over two hundred 45RU racks, there's a lot
>> of kit in there.
>>
>
> I'd thought they might also be fitting an entirely new fire suppression
> system rather than just going for a re-gas of what was there :)
>
>
>
If I was in a decision-making position there, I wouldn't want to replace
anything on the basis of what was there up till now. It seems from
previous posts like Channel 4's backup system wasn't the most effective
it could be, costs excepted, so I guess there could currently be a
rethink as to what they want for the future. After all, technology has
moved on, and they have some network flexibility issues to address.

--

Chris

Chris Youlden wrote:

> If I was in a decision-making position there, I wouldn't want to replace
> anything on the basis of what was there up till now. It seems from previous
> posts like Channel 4's backup system wasn't the most effective it could be,
> costs excepted, so I guess there could currently be a rethink as to what they
> want for the future. After all, technology has moved on, and they have some
> network flexibility issues to address.

This time next year we'll all have gigabit broadband. If freeview gave everyone
a free STB with a 4TB drive in it, they could preload what they predict you're
going to watch onto it overnight, and you could torrent stuff from one of your
neighbour's STBs if you watch something they didn't predict :-P

"tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sku31g$gq$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "SH" <i.love@spam.com> wrote in message news:skm48f$r6q$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/10/2021 10:18, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>
>> The RNID makes comments that is very hard to disagree with:
>>
>> For more than three weeks, the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf or
>> have hearing loss have felt excluded and increasingly angry, because the
>> system to provide subtitles and signed content is broken.
>>
>> "It's impossible to imagine a failure that affected the hearing community
>> being allowed to go on for so long.
>>
>> Clearly the same also applies to thoese who are visually impaired and rely
>> on Audio description, and that its impossible to imagine a failure that
>> affected the fully sighted community being allowed to go on for so
>> long....
>>
>> A class action under the Equality Act 2010 anyone?
>
> without monetary loss all you can achieve is specific performance
>
> And that will almost certainly arrive long before you get your day in court

I wonder if the DR backup system just wasn't equipped with subtitling
facilities to begin with (obviously they wouldn't admit this), because
they never envisaged a situation whereby DR would be required for more
than just a short period of time.

It would seem that provision for continuity announcements wasn't
included either...

"MB" <MB@nospam.net> wrote in message news:sku96i$f9e$1@dont-email.me...
> On 22/10/2021 11:16, tim... wrote:
>> without monetary loss all you can achieve is specific performance
>>
>> And that will almost certainly arrive long before you get your day in
>> court
>
> How many stenographers are there in the UK? Could they have hired all
> available ones and have them live subtitling? The systems are not perfect
> but I think most deaf people would be prepared to accept that as a
> temporary solution.

the problem appears to be in the play-out equipment

even repeated programs that had subtitles available from a first showing are
being broadcast minus them

On 22/10/2021 14:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> This time next year we'll all have gigabit broadband.

All?

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 11:47:51 UTC+1, charles wrote:
> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
> of AD & subtitles.

You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?

http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml

The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.

So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.

Owain

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 18:02:31 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
> > A proper "disaster recovery backup" should provide the same service as
> > before. Not sans subtitles and AD. I don't think one that only provided
> > SD (or monochrome) would have been regarded as "fit for purpose".
> If you say so. But where does the Equality Act or any other legislation
> require it of C4? AFAIK that - unlike some people - recognises that the
> price of perfection is prohibitive.

But it's just shoving data about - and subtitles and audio description even if in separate files are small compared to full video data.

It's not comparable to a Usenet service only providing the text-only newsgroups, for example, and omitting the binaries.

Owain

On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 19:05:12 UTC+1, SH wrote:
> imagine the outcry if the DR system made the whole UK 1 region instead
> of losing subtitles. AD and signing.... :-)

You mean we lose ... um, "Diana: A Model Princess" on London Live, or highlights of the sheepdog trials from Aberystwyth, with commentary in Gaelic, on BBC Alba, or the repeat of the repeat of "Still Game" on BBC Scotland?

11 million people in the UK are deaf or hard of hearing. That's a lot more than the number of people in Wales, or Gaelic speakers. 50% of over-50s and they're more likely to live alone and have less online access.

Owain

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT), Owain Lastname
<spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 11:47:51 UTC+1, charles wrote:
>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>> of AD & subtitles.
>
>You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>
>http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>
>The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>
>So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.

Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
to fix things at the moment.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 25/10/2021 12:07 pm, Martin wrote:

> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 11:47:51 UTC+1, charles wrote:

>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>> of AD & subtitles.
>
>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>
> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
> to fix things at the moment.

The "political" reason(s):

(a) the state should not be a broadcaster;

(b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;

(c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
just a company competing with others).

The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
consume or pay for its output.

[* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:itf3o0F8v9tU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 21/10/2021 22:05, Alexander wrote:
>> "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:ite21oF30qhU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On what basis do you assert that there are "thousands" of hard
>> drives, out of interest?
>>
> Red Bee's equipment room is over two hundred 45RU racks, there's a lot
> of kit in there.

Hard drives are still easily replaceable, even if there are
"thousands".

What was the function of the damaged facility? Was the
entirety of C4's pre-recorded output stored and played out
from there, or did Red Bee just take a raw programme feed from
C4 themselves, and insert the adverts, promos, continuity
announcements, subtitles etc. as required?

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed. Will hopefullhy get
> quite expensive for Channel 4.

How does that actually help anybody?

On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:03:26 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 25/10/2021 12:07 pm, Martin wrote:
>
>> Owain Lastname <spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 19 October 2021 at 11:47:51 UTC+1, charles wrote:
>
>>>> It is quite possible that the back-up system was designed before the days
>>>> of AD & subtitles.
>>
>>> You mean that today's digital playout systems predate 1975?
>>> http://teletext.mb21.co.uk/timeline/early-ceefax-subtitling.shtml
>>> The DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustment' dates back to 2002 and predates the DVB-T2 format adopted in 2009.
>>> So there's no legal or technical reason why subtitles shouldn't have been considered an integral part of any backup system, therefore I'm inclined to conclude management incompetence.
>>
>> Channel4 is being sold off for political reasons. There can't be much motivation
>> to fix things at the moment.
>
>The "political" reason(s):

Politicians don't like being caught telling lies by TV news journalists.

>
>(a) the state should not be a broadcaster;
>
>(b) the state should not have control of broadcasters*;
>
>(c) a broadcaster should not have the power of the state behind it (it's
>just a company competing with others).
>
>The BBC needs to be reformed with the same strictures in mind. It
>certainly shouldn't be able to prosecute people who don't want to
>consume or pay for its output.
>
>[* other than is necessary to regulate broadcasters so as to ensure lack
>of bias and for prevention/control of obscenity, etc.]

OK you are having a love affair with SKY
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed. Will hopefullhy get
>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
>
> How does that actually help anybody?
>

In the past when broadcasters missed targets for access services Ofcom
have (in cases I was aware of) accepted their undertakings to
make up the shortfall in a later year - on top of their targets for that
year.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/10/2021 02:04, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:55:15 +0100, MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> If their licence specifies subtitles and AD then I am sure OFCOM will be
>> giving them some penalties when it is all fixed. Will hopefullhy get
>> quite expensive for Channel 4.
> How does that actually help anybody?

If sufficiently expensive then they will be more careful to stick the
rules in future.