Talk:Netsplit

Needs

I think the "How does netsplit look like" section need to be updated. The long list of examples perhaps can be shortened or removed... Pancakebatfish 14:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a small touch-up. Nbettencourt 22:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We could remove SamLFC from the examples and save 4 lines. --Martinship 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Verbose?

Maybe the log example is a slightly lengthy? --Rio 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is also client dependent. I don't feel an example of this is necessary following a detailed description either. -- Para4501 25 Feb 2006

Why only IRC?

Why doesn't this afflict other protocols? Does IRC only allow any given server to connect to one other? If so, why? This should be added to the article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know this too. --MarSch 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys need to go read up on how IRC works. An IRC network is made up of a bunch of known/controlled servers that are linked together and constantly exchange information. If that link is dropped, well then you have a split. Viper007Bond 10:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for most other multi user programs, you are all connected to the same server, so you cant get one chunk disconnecting from another.--70.29.121.132 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters at all. In the end all that matters is whether there is connection between you and the other persons, not whether some of the machines sitting in between are called server or not. How often does it happen that you cannot access a website because of netsplit??? --MarSch 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people connect to usserver1.irc.net, some connect to euserver6.irc.net, and some connect to jpserver9.irc.net. If jp9's connection is interrupted somehow, all those poor people in Japan won't get through to those on the European and American servers. Websites are typically just one server (virtual or otherwise), so everyone connects to www.server.com. If that connection goes down, boom; everyone's equally hopping around on one foot with a smoking gun in their hand, until the routing can find a way around it (if possible.) The point is, there's very rarely a direct connection between peers; that's what the server's for, as an intermediary. —IW4^U_T^C 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesnt affect ONLY irc...i could give atleast one other example of where this also happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.237.73 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So something like MSN has one central server that everything's routed through? Why is it that that can do that but others can't? Is it more expensive to maintain a single large server than many small ones? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually, networks like that don't have one single server, but many servers (which may be in one facility) using dedicated connections to each other, making it look like one server. With IRC, the servers are (usually) very geographically separate—sometimes on different continents—and their connections to each other are at the whim of the Internet. Thus, their connections are much more likely to be interrupted, et voilà—instant netsplit (just add hot water). —IW4^U_T^C 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why do IRC networks use geographically separated servers when other protocols don't? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This could be to reduce lag, since lag already gets quite high having servers closer to you will reduce it. Lcarsdata 10:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope MSN doesn't use a single server, in North America or elsewhere. They well could have their own "netsplits"; How could you know when all you get is "service unavailable" and all your local friends get it too? In IRC it's more apparent because there are channels, with people from all over the world in it. Also, most of the time people get on a random server, so when one is down we see it from the large number of quits. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyclic connections

http://wiki.blitzed.org/No_more_netsplits Move this link to the article? 81.201.255.217 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

question

what does it mean when on the screen it appears from everybody's perspective that there has been a netsplit in which everybody ELSE has "quit" but you. the text comes up on the screen that everybody else but you has "quit", but when you get logs from other people it shows that you did "quit" and their name is not on their screen as having quit despite it being on yours. This has happened a few times in an IRC room and I just don't understand what it is. Slaja (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means you're alone on that particular server of all the people on the channel. The article now explains it. Palosirkka (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Netriding" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Netriding has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 21 § Netriding until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Prevention?

There should be a section describing how networks prevent netsplits. As is, prevention isn't brought up at all. I have to wonder why networks don't have all possible connections made. So if the direct connection between C and A is lost, they could still communicate by sending messages via C or D. Will (Talk - contribs) 10:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)