Who should be responsible for live server going down? | Page 5 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

buy when starts going up, sell when starts going down 5 replies

What should be noted when going live with MT4? 16 replies

win2003 server move to win2008 server to run MT4 & EA 1 reply

Going live with USD100k, which broker should I choose? 69 replies

Attachments: Who should be responsible for live server going down?
Exit Attachments

Who should be responsible for live server going down?

  • #81
  • Oct 20, 2015 7:16pm Oct 20, 2015 7:16pm
Quoting Fedricks
I am slightly confused here, I mean dont brokers have more than one servers even if they go down? Its disastrous if any broker gets the server down and whatever losses happen, its their responsibility to pay. I will accept it if they pay and this does not happen again, but otherwise I will make switch immediately. I never have faced such issue (thankfully) and I am currently using cTrader platform with Octafx, so far its pretty good without any difficulty.
The retail broker market is very complex and its easy to assume that they all operate the same manner.
With MT4 brokers the servers can be hosted by the broker,the bridge provider or even the liquidity aggregator.
Most retail clients wouldn't know what centre the servers are located in nor their time of order execution.
These questions should be asked to get an idea on what type of broker you are dealing with.
If they don't disclose then its time to leave and trust a broker who does.
  • #82
  • Edited 4:44am Oct 21, 2015 4:03am | Edited 4:44am
Quoting lasty
{quote} The retail broker market is very complex and its easy to assume that they all operate the same manner. With MT4 brokers the servers can be hosted by the broker,the bridge provider or even the liquidity aggregator. Most retail clients wouldn't know what centre the servers are located in nor their time of order execution. These questions should be asked to get an idea on what type of broker you are dealing with. If they don't disclose then its time to leave and trust a broker who does.
Hi lasty,

Maybe you (or anyone else in fact) can add some further comment re IC Markets?

On the one hand they're advertising "Servers in the NY4 IBX Data Center", which all sounds good. But when they and their clients fall victim to what we're told is a "DDoS" attack the situation becomes muddy especially because one of their IBs here at FF posts comments like this: "They (IC Markets) are upgrading the infrastructure to provide better services in future."

I'm confused. Does this mean IC Markets are upgrading their infrastructure in Australia or does it mean they're upgrading the package they are subscribed to in NY? If it's the former I'm struggling to understand how they can claim to have been the recent victim of a DDoS attack in NY without sharing some culpability.

I lost money (not a lot) during the service outage. Their support informed me that this was due to the spread widening over a news event. How they've had the bare face to completely fail to acknowledge that a (recognised) lack of a connection to my account at the time meant it wasn't possible for me to see the spread or even adjust the stop prior to the news event is beyond me. The same IB from above only makes matters worse. That this particular IB has written at FF "You can see the real time spread by placing a Spread Indicator on your chart" while ignoring the obvious fact that one needs real time data in order to be able to see real time spread smacks of obfuscation.

I won't post again in IC Market's "Commercial" thread here at FF because it's not possible to have a meaningful conversation with their representatives. And my experience of their support staff hopefully speaks for itself. At some point I just want to get back to trading. But this event has really opened my eyes. A broker to retail is obviously a key link in the chain. But if the broker becomes the weakest link in that chain it's "curtains" to a trader's business. I'd like to know the proper information about my broker; the sort of information that makes sense to me. I'm sure everyone wants the same. But where do we get it from, who do we turn to?
  • #83
  • Oct 21, 2015 4:42am Oct 21, 2015 4:42am
Quoting simond2002
{quote} Hi lasty, Maybe you (or anyone else in fact) can add some further comment re IC Markets? On the one hand they're advertising "Servers in the NY4 IBX Data Center", which all sounds good. But when they and their clients fall victim to what we're told is a "DDoS" attack the situation becomes muddy especially because one of their IBs here at FF posts comments like this: "They (IC Markets) are upgrading the infrastructure to provide better services in future." I'm confused. Does this mean IC Markets are upgrading their infrastructure in Australia...
Dear Simond2002

I echo your concerns, not just about IC Markets but retail brokers in general.

It is difficult enough managing the risk of the market itself, without having to also mitigate for the unquantifiable risk of the route to market (the broker).

If supposedly strictly regulated brokers can lead their customers a merry dance with ambiguity or, at worst, misrepresentation, how on earth are we supposed to build a robust trading career?

Kind regards
Robert
  • #84
  • Oct 21, 2015 6:01am Oct 21, 2015 6:01am
Quoting Fedricks
I am slightly confused here, I mean dont brokers have more than one servers even if they go down? Its disastrous if any broker gets the server down and whatever losses happen, its their responsibility to pay. I will accept it if they pay and this does not happen again, but otherwise I will make switch immediately. I never have faced such issue (thankfully) and I am currently using cTrader platform with Octafx, so far its pretty good without any difficulty.
I used to be an IT guy (software development, networks). More servers do not always solve the problem - you'd need a complete high availability environment. Not just multiple servers, you need them in multiple data centers COMPLETELY independent from each other (including everything that's behind the front-server "facade"). The last one is usually the problem. Even google or amazon are sometimes down, fukushima had a meltdown, planes crashed into the WTC - shit happens (from time to time).

Your broker will (most probably) reimburse you if your SL or TP wasn't triggered due to a system fault, if you didn't had a SL or TP in place it's unlikely they'll pay for your losses (for good reason).
  • #85
  • Oct 21, 2015 9:47am Oct 21, 2015 9:47am
Quoting RobertBazil
{quote} Dear Simond2002 I echo your concerns, not just about IC Markets but retail brokers in general. It is difficult enough managing the risk of the market itself, without having to also mitigate for the unquantifiable risk of the route to market (the broker). If supposedly strictly regulated brokers can lead their customers a merry dance with ambiguity or, at worst, misrepresentation, how on earth are we supposed to build a robust trading career? Kind regards Robert
Hi Robert,

Thanks for your reply. Yup, that's the rub - how to mitigate an unquantifiable risk. I'm not even sure there's an answer to the question.

I've started to research bank backed brokerages, which is something that at this point in time I know very little about. It seems there's only a few of them left and perhaps it's naive to think that working through one of them is going to be any more reliable or secure than a standard retail broker. But the time has definitely come to understand on a much deeper level that side of our business because just as you've alluded; understanding price and trading these markets is only one part of a bigger and more colourful picture.
  • #86
  • Oct 21, 2015 10:27am Oct 21, 2015 10:27am
Quoting simond2002
{quote} Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply. Yup, that's the rub - how to mitigate an unquantifiable risk. I'm not even sure there's an answer to the question. I've started to research bank backed brokerages, which is something that at this point in time I know very little about. It seems there's only a few of them left and perhaps it's naive to think that working through one of them is going to be any more reliable or secure than a standard retail broker. But the time has definitely come to understand on a much deeper level that side of our business...
Dear Simond2002

The idea of a bank-backed brokerage seems on face value to be ideal.

I have also tried previously to find some but unsuccessfully. Some banks like Barclays appeared to offer FX services but only using the old-fashioned and traditional "phone your account manager" methodology. I may be wrong, and I certainly hope I am, but the only bank type broker I can could find the last time I looked was Saxo.

If you do identify some and their spreads are not prohibitive (another consideration), I would be genuinely interested.

Would you very kindly let me know and, in the spirit of reciprocation, I will also reinvigorate my search.

Kind regards
Robert
  • #87
  • Oct 21, 2015 4:21pm Oct 21, 2015 4:21pm
Quoting simond2002
{quote} Hi lasty, Maybe you (or anyone else in fact) can add some further comment re IC Markets? On the one hand they're advertising "Servers in the NY4 IBX Data Center", which all sounds good. But when they and their clients fall victim to what we're told is a "DDoS" attack the situation becomes muddy especially because one of their IBs here at FF posts comments like this: "They (IC Markets) are upgrading the infrastructure to provide better services in future." I'm confused. Does this mean IC Markets are upgrading their infrastructure in Australia...
Gidday Simond2002

http://icmarkets.com/newsletter/808/

Their servers are hosted by onezero (their MT4 bridge provider) in other words they are outsourced, so improving infrastructure is up to onezero .
DDOS attack is nasty .. It paralyzes the business. Onezero appeared to fall victim and in this case IC markets were also a casualty along with other brokers who use the onezero bridge no doubt. (guessing here)
Its up to IC on how they want to convey the outage to their reps and relay that to their clients.
  • #88
  • Oct 22, 2015 3:42am Oct 22, 2015 3:42am
and again icmarkets... their ctrader platform is frozen now for 15 min. support told me their platform is disconnected... i think im done with them now... jesus christ... pain in the ass!
  • #89
  • Edited 6:08am Oct 22, 2015 5:56am | Edited 6:08am
Quoting lasty
{quote} Gidday Simond2002 http://icmarkets.com/newsletter/808/ Their servers are hosted by onezero (their MT4 bridge provider) in other words they are outsourced, so improving infrastructure is up to onezero . DDOS attack is nasty .. It paralyzes the business. Onezero appeared to fall victim and in this case IC markets were also a casualty along with other brokers who use the onezero bridge no doubt. (guessing here) Its up to IC on how they want to convey the outage to their reps and relay that to their clients.
Gidday

This scenario (outsourcing and MT4 bridge providing) is kind of reminiscent of what was going on (and to a large extent still is) with Broadband service providers. Their branding strategies often seemed to overlook the fact that they didn't actually own their own infrastructure and instead were reselling leased or "piggy-backed" bandwidth off of the large network owners like BT and NTL here in the UK. In principle there's no problem with that, but in practice it can be a nightmare for the end user when things start to go wrong.

I did receive a copy of the newsletter IC Markets sent out and I've got to be honest I was more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Like JensG above, I also worked in IT (management/networks/hardware/software) and these kind of scenarios just went with the territory. But we did have a cardinal rule, "If "the user's" p*issed off, don't p*ss him off!" For want of sounding like a broken record I won't press my point about IC Market's support any further.

Andrew Budzinski has now stated that “We believe this is likely to be a competitor” (behind the attack):

http://www.financemagnates.com/forex...ezero-clients/

The OP asked the question, "Who should be responsible for live server going down?" I guess ultimately it's the infrastructure owner, which is why it's got to be worth researching some of the bigger bank backed brokerages as an option to the outsourced bridged model. Whether or not start-up costs or cost of trading with these kind of outfits becomes prohibitive remains to be seen.

hoorroo
  • #90
  • Oct 22, 2015 6:33am Oct 22, 2015 6:33am
Quoting simond2002
{quote} Gidday This scenario (outsourcing and MT4 bridge providing) is kind of reminiscent of what was going on (and to a large extent still is) with Broadband service providers. Their branding strategies often seemed to overlook the fact that they didn't actually own their own infrastructure and instead were reselling leased or "piggy-backed" bandwidth off of the large network owners like BT and NTL here in the UK.
That's pretty much the same anywhere in europe, at least the so called "last mile" is almost always owned by the biggest (formerly state owned) player (if it's not, it's not necessarily a good thing either). BT in the UK, Telekom in Germany ... My advice regarding broadband is: get a business account, there are different service level agreements between your provider and the infrastructure owner. Or, if you can/want afford it, a dedicated fibre optic leased line.

Quoting simond2002
{quote}
In principle there's no problem with that, but in practice it can be a nightmare for the end user when things start to go wrong.
Well, for smaller businesses it's probably the best solution to source it out. They lack the money and the experience with stuff that's not their main business - they would have far more problems with their own equipment than with rented stuff.

Quoting simond2002
{quote}
it's got to be worth researching some of the bigger bank backed brokerages as an option to the outsourced bridged model. Whether or not start-up costs or cost of trading with these kind of outfits becomes prohibitive remains to be seen. hoorroo
Why not simply use 2 or 3 different brokers? Every network will have some single point of failure ... remember the thomson reuters outage?
  • #91
  • Oct 22, 2015 7:03am Oct 22, 2015 7:03am
So according to all you IT Experts, Forex trading is anything but transparent? What a shocker! Retail Forex trading (thats everyone on this website) should be a hobby at most.
FF = Forex Faggots
  • #92
  • Oct 22, 2015 7:12am Oct 22, 2015 7:12am
Quoting JensG
{quote}My advice regarding broadband is: get a business account, there are different service level agreements between your provider and the infrastructure owner. Or, if you can/want afford it, a dedicated fibre optic leased line.
Dunno what the situation is in Germany but here in the UK, BT have been running dedicated affordable fibre to the house for a couple of years now. My current ISP has been faultless but if that side of things goes belly up then BT's fibre option I think will be the only option for now.

Quoting JensG
{quote} Why not simply use 2 or 3 different brokers? Every network will have some single point of failure ... remember the thomson reuters outage?
The backtests that I ran were a compounding model with all funds held in one place. But yeah, the 2 or 3 broker thing is obviously a good option although I'll need to redo the math before considering it.
  • #93
  • Oct 22, 2015 7:27am Oct 22, 2015 7:27am
Quoting simond2002
{quote} Dunno what the situation is in Germany but here in the UK, BT have been running dedicated affordable fibre to the house for a couple of years now.
I know, I live there too Just wanted to mention that the basic last mile problem is pretty common.
  • #94
  • Oct 22, 2015 7:51am Oct 22, 2015 7:51am
Quoting JensG
{quote} I know, I live there too Just wanted to mention that the basic last mile problem is pretty common.
  • #96
  • Last Post: Oct 28, 2015 2:10am Oct 28, 2015 2:10am
I think the problem of server being down should be left to the broker! I've just learnt from one memeber, Sakisf, that brokers such asActivtrades have delays of upto 10 minutes after ever couple of hours! I can't believe this, maybe, or maybe not!
0 traders viewing now