Telehouse

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...ower_problems/

--
Eps


Eps

What, where, and who owns telehouse?

Retired

"Eps" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...ower_problems/
>
> --
> Eps

> What, where, and who owns telehouse?
>
> Retired

A simple Google search will tell you. Easy enough for those not too lazy!

http://www.telehouse.net/

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote in
44e4a818$0$3220$(E-Mail Removed):

>> What, where, and who owns telehouse?
>>
>> Retired
>
> A simple Google search will tell you. Easy enough for those not too
> lazy!
> http://www.telehouse.net/

I was fooled by Plusnet's description of "Telehouse North": I thought this
meant that it was in the north of England (eg close to PN's Sheffield
headquarters) - I
hadn't realised that it was in London.



On http://www.telehouse.net/facilities.asp they say:

"Sustainable power supplies are essential to the continuous operation of
equipment demanded by customers. Power continuity is a prime objective of
TELEHOUSE Europe.

TELEHOUSE Europe has a sophisticated power distribution system for
resilience. Multiple mains electricity feeds are supported by a UPS
(uninterruptible power supply) system with generator backup.
All of our power back-up systems are individually maintained and checked on
a routine basis. Redundant n+1 equipment provides spare capacity to enable
maintenance and repairs without interruption to customer services."

Sophisticated power distribution system for resilience, multiple mains
feeds, UPS, generator backup? Well *something* fairly critical failed, so
it's evidently not resilient enough!

In article <44e4ab9e$0$2694$(E-Mail Removed)>, Martin
Underwood <a@b.?> writes
>Peter Crosland wrote in
>44e4a818$0$3220$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>>> What, where, and who owns telehouse?
>>>
>>> Retired
>>
>> A simple Google search will tell you. Easy enough for those not too
>> lazy!
>> http://www.telehouse.net/
>
>I was fooled by Plusnet's description of "Telehouse North": I thought this
>meant that it was in the north of England (eg close to PN's Sheffield
>headquarters) - I
>hadn't realised that it was in London.
>
>
>
>On http://www.telehouse.net/facilities.asp they say:
>
>"Sustainable power supplies are essential to the continuous operation of
>equipment demanded by customers. Power continuity is a prime objective of
>TELEHOUSE Europe.
>
>TELEHOUSE Europe has a sophisticated power distribution system for
>resilience. Multiple mains electricity feeds are supported by a UPS
>(uninterruptible power supply) system with generator backup.
>All of our power back-up systems are individually maintained and checked on
>a routine basis. Redundant n+1 equipment provides spare capacity to enable
>maintenance and repairs without interruption to customer services."
>
>Sophisticated power distribution system for resilience, multiple mains
>feeds, UPS, generator backup? Well *something* fairly critical failed, so
>it's evidently not resilient enough!
>
>
>
If you read all the Register article..
There are (were?) two Power feeds, a single phase on one appears to have
burnt out.
Some of their (Telehouse) Clients were fed from both feeds. - These were
not affected.
All depends on how much resilience you want, or are prepared to pay
for.. It would appear 'not enough' in Plusnets' case.
Philip Partridge

On 17/08/2006 at 19:16:17 Phil Partridge wrote :
> All depends on how much resilience you want, or are prepared to pay
> for.. It would appear 'not enough' in Plusnets' case.
> Philip Partridge

But this happened before to Plusnet and I am sure they told the
customers that it was another lesson learned and would take steps to
prevent it happening again.

--
Tubbs: We could kill them all.
Edward: Ha ha. Oh, Tubbs. You're good hearted.

>>> What, where, and who owns telehouse?
>>>
>>> Retired
>>
>> A simple Google search will tell you. Easy enough for those not too
>> lazy!
>> http://www.telehouse.net/
>
> I was fooled by Plusnet's description of "Telehouse North": I thought
> this meant that it was in the north of England (eg close to PN's
> Sheffield headquarters) - I
> hadn't realised that it was in London.
>
>
>
> On http://www.telehouse.net/facilities.asp they say:
>
> "Sustainable power supplies are essential to the continuous operation
> of equipment demanded by customers. Power continuity is a prime
> objective of TELEHOUSE Europe.
>
> TELEHOUSE Europe has a sophisticated power distribution system for
> resilience. Multiple mains electricity feeds are supported by a UPS
> (uninterruptible power supply) system with generator backup.
> All of our power back-up systems are individually maintained and
> checked on a routine basis. Redundant n+1 equipment provides spare
> capacity to enable maintenance and repairs without interruption to
> customer services."
> Sophisticated power distribution system for resilience, multiple mains
> feeds, UPS, generator backup? Well *something* fairly critical
> failed, so it's evidently not resilient enough!

Quite so! But, and it is a big but, unless and until, we know the full facts
it is unreasonable to rush to judgement. In any case it is also not widely
understood just how costly it is to make a system totally fault resilient.
Even systems like those used by the banks are not immune to catastrophic
failures and they spend truly amazing amounts of money to achieve even
99.99% uptime. I doubt that any of the critics would be prepared to pay the
multiples of their current monthly charges that would be needed to fund a
significantly higher degree of reliability. It would be commercial suicide
for an ISP to attempt to provide such a near totally fault resilient system.

Peter Crosland

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:22:11 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Quite so! But, and it is a big but, unless and until, we know the full facts

You might want to ask what new kit had been installed in Plusnets two
suites and whether they had informed facilities management of them. It
is my understanding that this is where the problem lay. My
understanding may be flawed however
--
John Naismith

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:16:17 +0100, Phil Partridge
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>If you read all the Register article..
>There are (were?) two Power feeds, a single phase on one appears to have
>burnt out.
>Some of their (Telehouse) Clients were fed from both feeds. - These were
>not affected.
>All depends on how much resilience you want, or are prepared to pay
>for.. It would appear 'not enough' in Plusnets' case.
>Philip Partridge

I assume that to mean there were two independant 3 phase feeds to the
building. If one of these were to fail completely, or if 1 phase was
to fail then the UPS should have taken up the load. Normally, in the
event of an i/c supply failing or one or more of the phases failing,
then I woulsd expect the genny(s) to start - the UPS would have only
been required for the amount of time it took the genny(s) to come up
to load.

Hard to visualise what happened to Plusnets power supply.

--
Cheers

Peter

Please remove the invalid to reply

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:22:11 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Quite so! But, and it is a big but, unless and until, we know the
>> full facts
>
> You might want to ask what new kit had been installed in Plusnets two
> suites and whether they had informed facilities management of them. It
> is my understanding that this is where the problem lay. My
> understanding may be flawed however

Exactly what factual basis does your understanding have?
--
Peter Crosland