Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux iSCSI Initiator, OpenSource (fwd) (Re: Gauntlet Set NOW!) | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Tue, 07 Jan 2003 02:02:30 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 17:45:03 +1100, Lincoln Dale said: > 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-ho ur > >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?
No, I'm saying the assertion that "the operator would notice his LAN was broken" is incorrect. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |