nanog mailing list archives
Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash?
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:28:19 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Christopher Morrow wrote:
bufferbloat is the boogieman... of late. I think that's foolish :( I think this comment from jtk is really on point though! 'why only then?' that sure seems convenient, eh?
Failures almost never have a single cause. Transport networks are never perfect, i.e. delays, dropped packets, data corruption, etc. They may be contributing factors, or a combination ofrare events. The hard question that SEC and the industry has been wrestling with is "Why?" not so much "How?"
The apparent condititions didn't change, but the system reacted differently during those seconds. Why? What was different?
Current thread:
- Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Jay Ashworth (Aug 02)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? John Kristoff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Christopher Morrow (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Sean Donelan (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? joel jaeggli (Aug 06)
- RE: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Matthew Huff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Christopher Morrow (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? John Kristoff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? William Herrin (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Harlan Stenn (Aug 06)
