![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
At 12:38 AM 7/01/2003 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > What was the underlying error rate and distribution you assumed? I > > figure if it were high enough to get to your 1%, you'd have such high > > retry rates (and resulting throughput loss) that the operator would > > notice his LAN was broken weeks before said transfer completed. > >The average ISP wouldn't notice things were broken unless enough magic >smoke escaped to cause a Halon dump. > >Consider as evidence the following NANOG presentation: >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0210/wessels.html > >Some *98* percent of all queries at one of the root nameservers over a 24-hour >period were broken in some way. please don't confuse issues. i think you just epitomized the quote: "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". you're trying to say that because there is some broken/buggy nameserver code out there, it means that the error-rate for TCP is correct? cheers, lincoln. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||