There are various theories bouncing around about why the HealthCare.gov website is having such problems with capacity:
Anyway, that's just speculation. But here are the questions for the HealthCare.gov folks:
- How many concurrent users did you determine you could support on the system with the resources at launch?
- What were the system bottlenecks that imposed that limit?
- What were your contingency plans to add resources to temporarily raise system capacity as required at launch?
- What was your estimate of visitor traffic to the site on launch week, based on the anticipated heavy country-wide publicity?
- What performance degradation did you anticipate when 2x and 10x the maximum users attempted to use the site?
- What plan did you have to divert users by geo-located IP and / or run the system in a degraded mode in the event of overload, to focus the available performance on people who might actually want to buy healthcare?
- If you hadn't done the performance and load testing to determine the above numbers and evolve the above plans before launch, would you care to explain why not and what you thought you were being paid to do?
If the Senate is looking for questions to ask the HealthCare.gov architects when the inevitable reprisals come around, they could do worse than start with these.