Whats the *meaning* of a stable network?

Jorijn · none Joined: 07 Dec 2005 Posts: 21

I agree to you katsklaw,

But you know how hard it is to get 1000 users? Everybody can fill up his network with a couple of xdcc channels. But 1000 real users is going to be hard. Not just everybody drops by and says 'oh, this is going to be my new chatnetwork'

I wish they were like that.

Ofcourse with only 30 real users, getting a estimation on stability is going to be hard.

bobjuh · none Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 27

I personally consider my network stable.
We've been around a few years not a lot of netsplits.
We're a small network but me and the other admins doesn't mind.
Most people know each other irl by know. We've got a stable userbase of around 30 users. We're happy with this because bigger isn't better.

Aven · Idler Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 393

No offense Hollyw00d, but I think a windows server, running unreal can hold 11 users with a 100-day of uptime.

LiquidX · none Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 4

As mentioned earlier in this topic, a stable network is in my eyes as following:

1. Good staff members with no abuse.
2. Servers with great uptime and connection (cause less netsplits).
3. Also a stable build of services and modules which are implemented into the network services.

The amount of users isn't that important for me, as long the network has this *community* feeling. I have been on several networks past couple of years and the development isn't good.

Most people care about leeching and cause less activity as in 'chat'.

However, I am proud of one our our servers Smile

LiquidX@censored:/home/censored> w
8:46pm up 986 day(s), 5:34, 2 users, load average: 0.16, 0.08, 0.07

Best regards,
LiquidX

Aven · Idler Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 393

LiquidX · none Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 4

Well, I have an external firewall box which stop attacks on the box.

I believe with good ip-tables and security on the gateway box, a good uptime and outdated kernel isn't that big issue.

LiquidX

MrBurns · Posted: Jun 24, 2006 11:18am Post subject:

My network hasn't seen any activity in 5 years, has still the same owner, still the same co-owner, still the same hub server and still isn't going anywhere.

I'd say that's pretty stable...

Eurus · none Joined: 04 Jul 2006 Posts: 6

MrBurns · Posted: Jul 06, 2006 4:20am Post subject:

Server Up 223 days, 16:47:49
-
Highest connection count: 101 (100 clients)
-
End of /STATS report

If all servers were that stable... BTW sometimes servers need to be upgraded (hardware and software) and a power failure can happen anywhere. A PSU will only keep your server running a couple of hours max. if you're lucky. PSU's are not designed to provide continious power, they are designed to protect the hardware and allow the server to power down and close all projects so it doesn't lose data in the process.

magpie · Idler Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 453 Location: Essex, UK

Actually, you mean UPS. PSUs _are_ designed to keep things running permanently. :)

Incidentally, server uptimes on their own are completely irrelevant in the discussion about network stability. They don't contain information for the link uptime between particular servers, nor the average latency of the links.

SebasMiles · none Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 30

Stable network? Theres alot of limitation. You must have good links that arent overloaded on good datacenters. Make sure your ircd is properly configured and that services dont go crazy and crash.
But beyond this there is a real problem, even if script kiddies dont target you, they do target someone on your shell provider. Often they manage to take down entire datacenters, most times its just a small split for a few seconds but othertimes theyll take the dc down for up to an hour. Sometimes you even have to move away from a datacenter because although it used to be rocksolid after some time it may become unreliable, this causes netsplits all along until you moe away. Then there is the part with upgrades, providers upgrade their hardware and you upgrade your ircd. Then there is rerouting of links as you grow to move them to better hubs or to provide a more stable infrastructure. And as always there is the fuckups, someone forgets to pay a bill on time, or the provider screws up and shuts you down, or someone gets in a fight and delinks, others where the person is just stupid and is playing with something he shouldnt and kills the link, and ofcourse the up and down of bigger nets as they test new links. Generally we would accept a link and wait up to 2 weeks before loading it with people if we werent sure of the provider/datacenter, but then ofcourse shit always happens when you load it up with people. And to add one thing more, then you have problem with the DC´s bandwith providers such as abovenet and tier6(sp?) which at times go through disputes and keep shutting down their links. Woops and lets not forget about on bigger nets linking servers on another continent, theres always lag and connection issues you gotta work out.

The list just goes on and on and on and on and on......
So what is the definition of a stable net? One that does the best of its ability to not cause unintentional splits. Good stable services, good linking config, good routing, and being aware that things change and that they may have to move their links to another dc or not put all their eggs in one basket. This by itself is a real enigma, should you get all links on the most stable dc you can find at the time and risk loosing the entire net during a problem or spread out your links over a few dc´s increasing the risk of more often netsplits but saving part of your net during some downtime at a dc?

XB · none Joined: 08 Jul 2006 Posts: 16

There aint such a thing as stable when it comes to the internet.

magpie · Idler Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 453 Location: Essex, UK

Given the Internet was designed to cope with unreliable links and networks, one could argue otherwise.

SATAN-HHH · Eleet Joined: 29 Nov 2003 Posts: 942 Location: Texas

Considering the amount of people these days with their botnets and such who like to randomly packet things for no reason, I don't believe there truly is such thing as stability anymore. I've seen alot of shell companys come and go due to the amount of times they were hit, and hit hard. It's becoming harder and harder to achieve stability.