Tolerance for failure; I like it. Eric - I'm interested in an accepted norm of loss of queries made to the cache tier. Yes, when I provide a 'service' to a client (don't really care about SLA) i'm interested in what the accepted norm or guidance is on % loss on queries -- because this drives my architecture, right?
Marco - I think 'lost queries' in this instance is simply, wait for it.....the full UDP session. Yes yes, session is bad to say, but service request completed through middle-boxes are tracked as sessions. So thats what I'm looking for; what is the general consesus for reliability all other things equal. Sure, you have the factor of UDP, retry, path, etc. etc. etc.....but I think Larry hit the nail on the head - whats my clients[aggregate of] tolerance before Evil ensues. On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net> wrote: > On 9/13/2013 2:14 AM, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote: > >> On 09/13/13 03:53, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> >>> On 9/12/2013 3:25 PM, Phil Fagan wrote: >>> >>>> Its a good point about the anycast; 99.999% should be expected. >>>> >>> A small choice of attitude-reflecting language. >>> >>> I expect 100.000% >>> >>> I'll accept 99.999% or better. >>> >>> >> It depends... define 'lost queries'. For example; is RRL included here >> or not (sometimes you want to deliberatly 'loose' queries). >> > > > > I do not ever set any amount of failure as an objective. I usually have a > specified tolerance for failure. If for some odd circumstance I wan to > discard queries, that would involve knowing exactly what happened to > them--not loosing them. > > > > > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > > -- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618
