backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by wordsworm.. on Oct 31 at 9:58 AM

A data center lost network connectivity on Sunday after a technical failure

Obamacare saw another technical difficulty this weekend when a data center behind the HealthCare.gov website went down.

According to Reuters, Verizon's Terremark -- which hosts HealthCare.org and allows uninsured Americans to both search and buy health insurance -- lost network connectivity on Sunday after a technical failure. 

The glitch also threw off a data services hub that connects a number of federal agencies and is used to verify people's identity, citizenship, etc. This verification is necessary to check if people are eligible for tax credits that cut the cost of monthly insurance premiums.


"We are working with Terremark to get their timeline for addressing the issue," said Joanne Peters, a Health and Human Services (HHS) Department spokeswoman. "We understand that this issue is affecting other customers in addition to HealthCare.gov, and Terremark is working (to) resolve the issue as quickly as possible."

There have been a number of troubles with the rollout of Obamacare since it launched October 1. The White House didn't expect HealthCare.gov to see the amount of traffic it did when Obamacare began, and this led to many technical problems with the site, such as jumbled text, error messages and delays with loading pages. 

A key part of Obamacare is consumer accessibility to HealthCare.gov in order to select new insurance plans. The idea behind it is to bring health insurance to Americans that have gone without, and it also doesn't prevent those with pre-existing conditions to apply. 

Obama has compared the glitchy HealthCare.gov website to iOS 7, and even said that the recent issues are "unacceptable" while outlining a new way for customers to access the site. 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Pointing fingers
By Chaser on 10/28/2013 2:30:36 PM , Rating: 5
we can't expect our Dear Leader and his cabinet to be responsible for everything. He also knows nothing about the NSA spying (now international) either.

But to the President's credit he did know about Treyvon Martin and the Redskins controversies.




RE: Pointing fingers
By Omega215D on 10/28/2013 3:03:51 PM , Rating: 5
He also knew about Bin Laden the minute it happened yet when it came to Benghazi...


RE: Pointing fingers
By espaghetti on 10/28/2013 8:41:04 PM , Rating: 4
Cambridge police acting stupidly? Yep.
Fast and Furious? Nope.


RE: Pointing fingers
By Samus on 10/28/2013 8:52:42 PM , Rating: 3
What I don't get is...Amazon and eBay don't crash the weekend before Christmas and 1800flowers.com doesn't crash the day before Valentines.

Running a popular website isn't rocket science. The fact this site is crashing the data center means you need to move it to another data center that can handle the traffic.


RE: Pointing fingers
By espaghetti on 10/28/2013 9:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Two minutes of date sensitive research reveals that Terremark has had a poor track record well before they were given a U.S. contract.


RE: Pointing fingers
By marvdmartian on 10/29/2013 7:51:14 AM , Rating: 2
So we CAN give credit to this administration, for picking the worst possible choice, when it came to running this debacle of a social program. Probably some conflict of interest thrown in there as well, from what I'm hearing.

Nothing new for this failure of a president.


RE: Pointing fingers
By crimson117 on 10/29/2013 10:32:14 AM , Rating: 1
Amazon has had years of gradual traffic buildup and billions of dollars to invest into its architecture.

Also, Amazon has very few integration points to worry about - other than credit card processing, most of their services are in-house and under their control.

Healthcare.gov has to integrate with dozens of insurers and goveernment databases to build a profile of an applicant. And, they had to do it on a relatively limited (compared to Amazon) budget and timeline.


RE: Pointing fingers
By overlandpark4me on 10/29/2013 9:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Quit acting like an Obama sheep.

They had 600 million. Limited budget, lololololol

"The White House didn't expect HealthCare.gov to see the amount of traffic it did? LOLOLOL, Really? It was crashing when hundreds tried it during the "whole week" of testing. Stop posting, you're embarrassing.


RE: Pointing fingers
By overlandpark4me on 10/29/2013 9:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
He also didn't know about
Fast and furious
Benghazi
IRS targeting of conservatives.

Also, his wife 's radical buddy from college was given the contract to do the site on a no bid contract...hmmmm


Sorry
By Ammohunt on 10/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: Sorry
By theArchMichael on 10/28/2013 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for the architecture of the application, but I'm shocked that they don't have a geographically distributed high availability solution. I mean, that's something a lot of medium sized businesses have... This is the government, kind of a big deal... you would think they would go all out.


RE: Sorry
By Fallen Kell on 10/28/2013 5:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
Not when the contract goes out to the lowest bidder. You don't see Amazon or Google hiring the lowest bidders to their company to design and/or run operations. They go with the most qualified bidder, which in many cases also happens to be the most expensive, not least.


RE: Sorry
By theArchMichael on 10/28/2013 5:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'd agree with that mostly, but I think the failure is because there is a lack of IT resources in HHS that weren't able to make an assessment of which proposal would really suit there needs. Just that parts a lot of work and an important role, you can't contract that piece away because then the fox is guarding the henhouse.


RE: Sorry
By TheJian on 10/29/2013 6:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
Lowest bidder? Didn't this think cost far over the $93mil they estimated? Rumor is 400mil to 634mil right?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed...
CBS news, site is a DISASTER.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-hea...
"The site also cost more than it took to initially create Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, according to the report."
500mil+?
"Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $500 million mark in June 2010."

Facebook gets a crap-ton of traffic right? Surely more than just a hundred million USA only users of the gov site. HALF of the worlds population (not me...LOL) uses facebook. I think they contract the FAVORITE bidder of some washington honcho, not the least expensive bidder. The guy in the vid says it seems they didn't even beta test the site...LOL.

http://blog.executivebiz.com/2011/12/cgi-federal-t...
Clearly they are way over $93mil, and should have never had the contract. I remember seeing Dell.com, IBM.com etc made for under 30mil years ago and they do millions in transactions etc daily. Even at 93mil the price was ridiculous for what it does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp...
How long can this chick hide from testifying? She was at a GALA instead?...Seriously? They need to have another and force her to come to the meeting.


RE: Sorry
By wordsworm on 10/31/2013 9:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
Are you saying you want Facebook to take control over government data centers?


This Was Designed to Fail.
By Arsynic on 10/28/2013 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
Fingers are pointing at everyone else except the people responsible. The technical issues are just the tip of the iceberg of this thrown-together special interest nightmare.




RE: This Was Designed to Fail.
By Omega215D on 10/28/2013 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
They contracted a firm that was known to be probldmatic, even paid half a billion for the privilege. Some official's pocket definitely got lined in this case.


Security
By drlumen on 10/28/2013 3:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that they are having so many issue just getting it up and running, I'm certainly not very confident it will be secure.

100's of millions of user records being held by this level of incompetence sounds like an incredibly easy honey pot to me. How soon do you all think it will be before they announce the site has been hacked and all user records were exposed?

I guess I should have faith in the gov't and their contractors though. :p




RE: Security
By Iaiken on 10/28/2013 5:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess I should have faith in the gov't and their contractors though. :p


Personally, I almost laughed myself silly when a caller to a talk show in California said “Mark Zuckerberg built Facebook basically overnight! What’s wrong with these cretins!”. People who aren't in the big data industry are literally borderline morons when it comes discussing it as a topic, politically or otherwise.

The fact that HealthCare.gov tried hit the ground running with 10 million users a day was a formula for disaster. Asking several different contractors to each build “Enterprise Software” components of an that would then be tightly coupled together was a formula for disaster. The fact that every returned proposal needed to be run through eight layers of regulation before it was even considered for approval was a formula for disaster. The fact that core competency of the contractors that won lie in making winning bids rather than building anything worthwhile is a formula for disaster.

Considering the combined influences of these formulas for failure, I'm actually shocked that it ever actually worked at all. The idea of such tightly coupled “Enterprise Software” is so outdated that any contractor who even mentioned the term should have been sacked on the spot. The fact that these contractors thought they could provide a "turnkey solution" at all should have been a warning sign of their incompetency. There simply isn't a private sector equivalent, every other 10 million user a day player took years of iteration to get to where they are now. Take Google, they very carefully gated entry to youtube, gmail, G+, drive and wallet to ramp up the loads in private betas before they went live.

The government set out from the start with it's The Fortune 1,000 contractors convincing them to "do it wrong" and nobody should be surprised that "wrong" is how they did it.


By Nekrik on 10/28/2013 4:32:46 PM , Rating: 3
"...The White House didn't expect HealthCare.gov to see the amount of traffic it did when Obamacare began, and this led to many technical problems with the site, such as jumbled text, error messages and delays with loading pages."

I believe they may be selling it to the media this way, but in reality they couldn't have handled any end-to-end scenarios, this is just a positive way to spin an utter failure to engineer a functional system.




Did it make a sound?
By YearOfTheDingo on 10/28/2013 2:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
A web site that doesn't work crashed in the middle of a data center...




More on the cost to americans
By TheJian on 10/29/2013 6:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
http://about.bgov.com/2013-10-24/late-it-cash-surg...
352mil went out the door to top 10 obamacare favs...
"Although the GAO made clear that its study focused solely on the costs of implementing the federal exchanges and the data services hub, its $394 million tally for work through March 31 has been widely cited as the price tag for the entire launch of the law. But in looking at the full range of ACA-related contracts for just 10 firms, the BGOV analysis found more than $1 billion worth of contract awards."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform...
So this whole thing might cost 1Billion?...jeez...Who needs to go to jail here?




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki