lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Linux iSCSI Initiator, OpenSource (fwd) (Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!)
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:20:46 CST, Oliver Xymoron said:

    > 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. And there wasn't even a DDoS in progress
    at the time...

    Also, I think Andrew was computing the chances that *SOME* packet in the
    100T would be mangled in an undetected fashion, so 99% of the time all 100T
    would be OK, but 1% of the time there was some subtle block mangling some
    dozens of terabytes into the transfer. Given that the TCP slow-start code
    is currently busticated for gigabit and higher (it takes *hours* without a
    packet drop to get the window open *all* the way - there's IETF drafts
    in process about this), it's quite possible that you'd not notice packet
    drops due to error among all the congestion drops kicking the window size
    down.....
    --
    Valdis Kletnieks
    Computer Systems Senior Engineer
    Virginia Tech

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.025 / U:30.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site