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
--==_Exmh_-787681340P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE+GmfKcC3lWbTT17ARAsSOAKDpTo3YCPQfaJEouVyV1Z6ZLcHQZQCgqQQ6 9VZ+kwKpL64+SGtiOJIudeQ= =6lgg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-787681340P-- - 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/