5 ms·

That's fair, but even if it is dynamic, I doubt it's checked on a regular basis; I doubt it's a scenario they've even considered before now. This would be on p

That's fair, but even if it is dynamic, I doubt it's checked on a regular basis; I doubt it's a scenario they've even considered before now. This would be on par with the DNS root servers changing and somehow letting everyone know about it on the fly.

tommi 16y ago
I tend to disagree. Error handling exactly in such cases where you have to bring the network online from a complete halt or other catastrophe is at the very heart of the architecture of these systems. These scenarios should and are at the minds of the architects and coders.
- terryjsmith 16y ago
  That's a lot easier when it's your network. Skype is obviously designed to be used in "hostile" environments; super nodes are likely expected to go away and come back on a regular basis. Likewise, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that there will be a given number of nodes online at any given time. If they all disappear, I doubt there's a contingency plan for that.
  - tommi 16y ago
    From the Skype's status update: "Our engineers are creating new ‘mega-supernodes’ as fast as they can, which should gradually return things to normal." So they can inject new supernodes in to the system and clients will discover'em gradually. That kind of indicates that they have a mechanism not to DDOS the new mega-supernodes. It's a contingency plan. I fail to see what we are arguing here.
    - terryjsmith 16y ago
      I'm just relaying my experience with P2P network design and with system-wide failures. I agree with you that gradual discovery is possible, but I doubt that's the best case scenario for them depending on how long it takes. They have the worst of both world: if it's slow, their users are going to be extremely frustrated, but if their clients are very quick to discover new nodes, the possibility of them getting swamped is still very real. The status update doesn't talk about their deployment strategy at all so I don't think we can make assumptions; either way has it's own potentially serious issues.

tommi 16y ago

I tend to disagree. Error handling exactly in such cases where you have to bring the network online from a complete halt or other catastrophe is at the very heart of the architecture of these systems. These scenarios should and are at the minds of the architects and coders.

terryjsmith 16y ago
That's a lot easier when it's your network. Skype is obviously designed to be used in "hostile" environments; super nodes are likely expected to go away and come back on a regular basis. Likewise, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that there will be a given number of nodes online at any given time. If they all disappear, I doubt there's a contingency plan for that.
- tommi 16y ago
  From the Skype's status update: "Our engineers are creating new ‘mega-supernodes’ as fast as they can, which should gradually return things to normal." So they can inject new supernodes in to the system and clients will discover'em gradually. That kind of indicates that they have a mechanism not to DDOS the new mega-supernodes. It's a contingency plan. I fail to see what we are arguing here.
  - terryjsmith 16y ago
    I'm just relaying my experience with P2P network design and with system-wide failures. I agree with you that gradual discovery is possible, but I doubt that's the best case scenario for them depending on how long it takes. They have the worst of both world: if it's slow, their users are going to be extremely frustrated, but if their clients are very quick to discover new nodes, the possibility of them getting swamped is still very real. The status update doesn't talk about their deployment strategy at all so I don't think we can make assumptions; either way has it's own potentially serious issues.