Talk:Netsplit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the "How does netsplit look like" section need to be updated. The long list of examples perhaps can be shortened or removed...

Pancakebatfish 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a small touch-up. Nbettencourt 22:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We could remove SamLFC from the examples and save 4 lines. --Martinship 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verbose?

Maybe the log example is a slightly lengthy? --Rio 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is also client dependent. I don't feel an example of this is necessary following a detailed description either. -- Para4501 25 Feb 2006

[edit] Why only IRC?

Why doesn't this afflict other protocols? Does IRC only allow any given server to connect to one other? If so, why? This should be added to the article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know this too. --MarSch 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to go read up on how IRC works. An IRC network is made up of a bunch of known/controlled servers that are linked together and constantly exchange information. If that link is dropped, well then you have a split. Viper007Bond 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for most other multi user programs, you are all connected to the same server, so you cant get one chunk disconnecting from another.--70.29.121.132 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters at all. In the end all that matters is whether there is connection between you and the other persons, not whether some of the machines sitting in between are called server or not. How often does it happen that you cannot access a website because of netsplit??? --MarSch 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people connect to usserver1.irc.net, some connect to euserver6.irc.net, and some connect to jpserver9.irc.net. If jp9's connection is interrupted somehow, all those poor people in Japan won't get through to those on the European and American servers. Websites are typically just one server (virtual or otherwise), so everyone connects to www.server.com. If that connection goes down, boom; everyone's equally hopping around on one foot with a smoking gun in their hand, until the routing can find a way around it (if possible.) The point is, there's very rarely a direct connection between peers; that's what the server's for, as an intermediary. —IW4^U_T^C 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So something like MSN has one central server that everything's routed through? Why is it that that can do that but others can't? Is it more expensive to maintain a single large server than many small ones? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually, networks like that don't have one single server, but many servers (which may be in one facility) using dedicated connections to each other, making it look like one server. With IRC, the servers are (usually) very geographically separate—sometimes on different continents—and their connections to each other are at the whim of the Internet. Thus, their connections are much more likely to be interrupted, et voilà—instant netsplit (just add hot water). —IW4^U_T^C 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why do IRC networks use geographically separated servers when other protocols don't? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This could be to reduce lag, since lag already gets quite high having servers closer to you will reduce it. Lcarsdata 10:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope MSN doesn't use a single server, in North America or elsewhere. They well could have their own "netsplits"; How could you know when all you get is "service unavailable" and all your local friends get it too? In IRC it's more apparent because there are channels, with people from all over the world in it. Also, most of the time people get on a random server, so when one is down we see it from the large number of quits. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)