advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

Oracle Backup Failure Major Factor In American Eagle 8-Day Crash

Written by Evan Schuman
July 30th, 2010

It seems a failure in an Oracle backup utility coupled with the failure of IBM hosting managers to detect it and to verify that a disaster recovery site was operational were the key factors in turning a standard site outage at American Eagle Outfitters into an 8-day-long disaster, according to an IT source involved in the probe.

The initial problem was pretty much along the lines of what StorefrontBacktalk reported on Thursday (July 29), which was a series of server failures. But the problems with two of the biggest names in retail tech–IBM and Oracle–are what made this situation balloon into a nightmare.

“The storage drive went down at IBM hosting and, immediately after that, the secondary drive went down. Probably a one-in-a-million possibility, but it happened,” said an IT source involved in the probe. “Once replaced, they tried to do a restore, and backups would not restore with the Oracle backup utility. They had 400 gigabytes (of data) and they were only getting 1 gigabyte per hour restoring. They got it up to 5 gigabytes per hour, but the restores kept failing. I don’t know if there was data corruption of a faulty process.”

Thus far, that’s pretty bad. It’s a statistically unlikely problem, but site management had insisted on state-of-the-art backup and restore packages so there shouldn’t be a huge problem, right? Not quite.

“The final straw was the disaster recovery site, which was not ready to go,” the source said. “They apparently could not get the active logs rolling in the disaster recovery site. I know they were supposed to have completed it with Oracle Data Guard, but apparently it must have fallen off the priority list in the past few months and it was not there when needed.”

The source added that these situations–as bad as they are–are simply part of the risks of using managed service arrangements at hosting firms, as opposed to handling site management remotely–and with your own salaried people–at a collocation site.

Some IT problems are hard to assign blame for, such as a direct lightning strike that overpowers power management systems. But having a multi-billion-dollar E-Commerce site completely down for several days–and crippled, functionality-wise, for eight days–because of backups and a disaster recovery site that weren’t being maintained? That’s borderline criminal. Actually, that’s not fair. We shouldn’t have said borderline.

Consider this line: “I know they were supposed to have completed it with Oracle Data Guard, but apparently it must have fallen off the priority list in the past few months and it was not there when needed.” Fallen off the priority list in the past few months? IBM’s job is to protect huge E-Commerce sites. After the initial setup, there’s not much to do beyond monitor and make sure that backups happen and are functional.

IBM isn’t a low-cost vendor, so it will be interesting to see whether those hosting fees are justified. As our source put it: “I am sure there will be an big issue with IBM about getting payback.”

What lesson should CIOs and E-Commerce directors take from this incident? They are paying for backup and for a high-end vendor to make sure that backup is working. What more should be required? Does a vendor like IBM require babysitting, where staff is periodically dispatched to the server farm for a surprise inspection of backups?

Perhaps that should be part of an expanded Service-Level Agreement, but that SLA had better include a huge and immediate financial penalty if those inspections find anything naughty. If this American Eagle doesn’t get the attention of hosting firms, maybe those penalties will.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.