Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23571 > unrolled thread

Google down?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Google down? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-04-22 15:35 -0700
    Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 16:16 -0700
      Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 16:25 -0700
        Re: Google down? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-04-22 17:39 -0700
          Re: Google down? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-22 18:07 -0700
            Re: Google down? lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-04-23 08:42 +0100
              Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:23 -0400
                Re: Google down? lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-04-24 08:44 +0100
                  Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-26 22:20 -0400
          Re: Google down? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-04-22 20:22 -0500
            Re: Google down? x@x.com (znôrt) - 2013-04-23 08:11 +0200
              Re: Google down? Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2013-04-23 09:34 -0500
                Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:21 -0400
            Re: Google down? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-04-23 12:07 -0700
          Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-22 21:38 -0400
            Re: Google down? Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2013-04-23 14:37 +0200
              Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-23 22:27 -0400
    Re: Google down? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-22 19:36 -0400
    Re: Google down? rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2013-04-24 12:03 +0100

#23571 — Google down?

Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local
outage?
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand. 
 ~ George Eliot (born: 1819-11-22 died: 1880-12-22 at age: 61) (Mary Ann Evans)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#23572

On Monday, April 22, 2013 3:35:41 PM UTC-7, Roedy Green wrote:
> Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
> they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local
> outage?

Nope.

And this is off topic.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23573

Lew wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
>> they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local

BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.

>> outage?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> And this is off topic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57580714/google-commemorates-earth-day-2013-with-animation-of-seasons/

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23575

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:25:23 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.

I am gathering evidence from people I know, such as yourself

Google has never been down before.  Since google has massive
redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.

Why must you use EVERY opportunity to be rude?
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand. 
 ~ George Eliot (born: 1819-11-22 died: 1880-12-22 at age: 61) (Mary Ann Evans)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23576

Roedy Green wrote:
> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.
> 
> I am gathering evidence from people I know, such as yourself
> 
> Google has never been down before.  Since google has massive
> redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.

And it wasn't down this time.

> Why must you use EVERY opportunity to be rude?

You suggested that Anonymous was hacking Google.

That was an outrageously paranoid remark based on less than no evidence.

It was not a suggestion designed to engender respect.

Sorry, just calling it as I see it.

Don't say outrageously paranoid things based on no evidence if you don't like it.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23581

On 23/04/13 02:07, Lew wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
>> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.

Not really, hackers have often proved how effective they can be if 
suitably pissed off. You're just looking for any excuse to pick a fight 
... again.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time ?

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23607

On 4/23/2013 3:42 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 23/04/13 02:07, Lew wrote:
>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.
>
> Not really, hackers have often proved how effective they can be if
> suitably pissed off.

And?

It does not justify that type of speculation.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23615

On 24/04/13 03:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 3:42 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>> On 23/04/13 02:07, Lew wrote:
>>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.
>>
>> Not really, hackers have often proved how effective they can be if
>> suitably pissed off.
>
> And?
>
> It does not justify that type of speculation.

What are you blathering about now for goodness sake

Someone asked a perfectly reasonable question, Bloch local replied with 
his customary rudeness and ignorance and here you are deciding what is 
and is not acceptable in c.l.j.p ... again.

Will you get over yourself

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23663

On 4/24/2013 3:44 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
> On 24/04/13 03:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/23/2013 3:42 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
>>> On 23/04/13 02:07, Lew wrote:
>>>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>>>> Lew wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>>>>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.
>>>
>>> Not really, hackers have often proved how effective they can be if
>>> suitably pissed off.
>>
>> And?
>>
>> It does not justify that type of speculation.
>
> What are you blathering about now for goodness sake

If you go back in the thread you will find the topic
under discussion.

#Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
#they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local

May I suggest that you read the thread if you are confused about
what the topic really is about.

> Someone asked a perfectly reasonable question,

No.

Someone posted an off topic and conspiracy theorizing question.

This is comp.lang.java.programmer not
comp.speculate-on-whether-a-website-has-attacked-and-by-whom-and-why.

>                                              Bloch local replied with
> his customary rudeness and ignorance and here you are deciding what is
> and is not acceptable in c.l.j.p ...

"The pot calling the kettle black".

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23577

On 4/22/2013 7:39 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> Google has never been down before.  Since google has massive
> redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.

So obviously, Gmail hasn't failed once. Well, at least not since last 
week. Discount that, and it hasn't failed since... March?

In my experience, "noticeable" periods of downtime for Google services 
are surprisingly common.

This is also discounting the fact that there are about a dozen things 
that could go wrong between you and Google transiently. The more you 
learn about how the Internet works, the more surprised you become that 
it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23579

Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> writes:

> a dozen things that could go wrong between you and Google
> transiently. The more you learn about how the Internet works, the more
> surprised you become that it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.

that's by design. it's supposed to be a reliable network built upon
unreliable parts. the real threat to internet doesn't reside in the
architecture or the transport layer, it's in society not being up to
defend its neutrality and loosing it to merchants, and control
freaks. this is indeed already starting to happen.

oh, and internet is not google. not yet.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23586

On 4/23/2013 1:11 AM, znôrt wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> writes:
>
>> a dozen things that could go wrong between you and Google
>> transiently. The more you learn about how the Internet works, the more
>> surprised you become that it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.
>
> that's by design. it's supposed to be a reliable network built upon
> unreliable parts

Ha ha ha.

A brief list of major networking issues:
1. Traffic in the internet core is routed pretty much by "hot 
potato"--give it to somebody else as fast as possible.
2. The routing algorithms we use (in BGP) are not guaranteed to have a 
nice fixed point solution.
3. To route packets at current speeds, you can do about 2 memory lookups 
to figure out how to route a packet based on an arbitrary IP address prefix.
4. We ran out of IPv4 address space, and we're still not IPv6-compatible 
everywhere. Solution? Put entire ISPs under a single NAT...
5. TCP has congestion control mechanisms, but these can cause 
problematic jank in streaming video. So every streaming video defines 
its own variant protocol without congestion control. (Netflix is one of 
the biggest threats to the Internet!)
6. Underlying control mechanisms on the Internet are not authenticated 
in any way. This allows, for example, Pakistan to accidentally kill 
worldwide access to Youtube.

Reliability was one of the secondary goals of TCP, but it was not the 
primary goal. But TCP is not the internet; many of the most vital 
components of the Internet explicitly eschew TCP.

I reiterate, the more you know about how the Internet works--about all 
of the jumbled lottery of protocol acronyms--the more surprised you are 
that it works at all. This is a belief that has been explicitly stated 
to me by several professional network researchers.

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not 
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23606

On 4/23/2013 10:34 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 1:11 AM, znôrt wrote:
>> Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> a dozen things that could go wrong between you and Google
>>> transiently. The more you learn about how the Internet works, the more
>>> surprised you become that it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.
>>
>> that's by design. it's supposed to be a reliable network built upon
>> unreliable parts
>
> Ha ha ha.
>
> A brief list of major networking issues:
> 1. Traffic in the internet core is routed pretty much by "hot
> potato"--give it to somebody else as fast as possible.
> 2. The routing algorithms we use (in BGP) are not guaranteed to have a
> nice fixed point solution.
> 3. To route packets at current speeds, you can do about 2 memory lookups
> to figure out how to route a packet based on an arbitrary IP address
> prefix.
> 4. We ran out of IPv4 address space, and we're still not IPv6-compatible
> everywhere. Solution? Put entire ISPs under a single NAT...
> 5. TCP has congestion control mechanisms, but these can cause
> problematic jank in streaming video. So every streaming video defines
> its own variant protocol without congestion control. (Netflix is one of
> the biggest threats to the Internet!)
> 6. Underlying control mechanisms on the Internet are not authenticated
> in any way. This allows, for example, Pakistan to accidentally kill
> worldwide access to Youtube.
>
> Reliability was one of the secondary goals of TCP, but it was not the
> primary goal. But TCP is not the internet; many of the most vital
> components of the Internet explicitly eschew TCP.
>
> I reiterate, the more you know about how the Internet works--about all
> of the jumbled lottery of protocol acronyms--the more surprised you are
> that it works at all. This is a belief that has been explicitly stated
> to me by several professional network researchers.

I am not so surprised.

The internet is not a well designed solution.

It is not really designed at all. It is more like random permutations
and survival of the fittest.

The result of such an evolution may be a bit chaotic, unstructured
and confusing.

And you may wonder how the heck did it ever work at all.

But each part has only survived because it fills a requirement and
have no flaws that are fatal in practice.

Would it have been possible to design a set of protocols
that would have been more robust/safe and more elegant.

Theoretical yes.

In practice I doubt it.

The big designs typical end up with big flaws.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23594

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:22:24 -0500, Joshua Cranmer ?
<Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

>This is also discounting the fact that there are about a dozen things 
>that could go wrong between you and Google transiently. The more you 
>learn about how the Internet works, the more surprised you become that 
>it hasn't all fallen to pieces yet.

     Agreed in spades.

     I have a Bachelor of Computing Science degree with a
concentration in computer networking.  That means that I can
definitely appreciate the situation in general, but that I do not know
very much fine detail.

     Just under a hour ago, I just finally cleaned up an issue that I
had for about two weeks with one E-mail list that I subscribe to.  For
some reason, I was unable to post to it.  My E-mail otherwise worked
just fine.  The issue *might* have been related to a problem with my
ISP having SSL certs expire just before then.  Or maybe not.
Unfortunately, I do not know what it was that finally did it and got
me back on the list.

     Chewing gum and baling wire.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23578

On 4/22/2013 8:39 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:25:23 -0700 (PDT), Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> BTW, that is an hysterical piece of conspiracy theorizing.
>
> I am gathering evidence from people I know, such as yourself
>
> Google has never been down before.

Of course it have. Quite frequently.

Google it.

Hm. Google it when you can get to Google agian.

>                       Since google has massive
> redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.

Google is massive parallel. That does not equal massive
redundant.

> Why must you use EVERY opportunity to be rude?

You did come up with a conspiracy theory.

Without any evidence or indications at all.

It is not that far fetched to call that hysterical.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23584

Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>                       Since google has massive
>> redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.
>
> Google is massive parallel. That does not equal massive
> redundant.

Google search can refetch data from the websites
it indexes at any time, so I guess it is less
redundant.

But I guess the other services are implemented
with some redundancy, i.e. database replication
etc.. Probably using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanner_%28database%29
     "It uses the Paxos algorithm as
      part of its operation."

Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23608

On 4/23/2013 8:37 AM, Jan Burse wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>                       Since google has massive
>>> redundancy it would be odd for it to go down.
>>
>> Google is massive parallel. That does not equal massive
>> redundant.
>
> Google search can refetch data from the websites
> it indexes at any time, so I guess it is less
> redundant.
>
> But I guess the other services are implemented
> with some redundancy, i.e. database replication
> etc..

I am sure that most of Google stuff are replicated, so it
is redundant. But I am note sure that it is massive
redundant. It is not business critical for Google.

>        Probably using:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanner_%28database%29
>      "It uses the Paxos algorithm as
>       part of its operation."

That stuff is used for Googles advertising and that
is what generates most of Google revenue, so it is
business critical and it may very likely be massive redundant.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23574

On 4/22/2013 6:35 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
> they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local
> outage?

I think it is local - probably a radius of a few feet around your PC.

:-)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23621

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:35:41 -0700, Roedy Green
<see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

>Google appears to be down.  Anonymous wanted to protest CISPA. Did
>they shut down Google as part of the protest, or is this just a local
>outage?
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

rossum

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web