Slashdot down again?

Slashdot down again?

Post by Ayende Rahie » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:47:03



I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
I tried this:
http://util.anonymizer.com/cgi-bin/freeaction.cgi?go=go&url=http://ww...
dot.org/

Can't reach it either.

Try pinging it, doesn't work.

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Mart van de Weg » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:15:39




> I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it. I tried this:
> http://util.anonymizer.com/cgi-bin/freeaction.cgi?go=go&url=http://ww...
> dot.org/

> Can't reach it either.

> Try pinging it, doesn't work.

Nope,

Dead as a doornail. It was online about 2 hours ago, but I had problems
getting articles to load (some would, some wouldn't). I also saw that a
lot of comment posting was going on (comment counts were high on the
frontpage).
Might they have taken it offline because of problems with the database
server?

Mart

--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by organ » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:07:35




Quote:> I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
> I tried this:
> http://www.veryComputer.com/://www.s
> lash dot.org/

> Can't reach it either.

> Try pinging it, doesn't work.

...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
Slashdot is online or not.  They haven't been interesting for, oh, about
three years now.  Like Suck and Feed, Slashdot is a faux-hip, "we're such
rebels" corporate lapdog.  * 'em.  I hope they die.

Regards,

organic

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Ayende Rahie » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:58:56





> > I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
> > I tried this:
> > http://www.veryComputer.com/://www.s
> > lash dot.org/

> > Can't reach it either.

> > Try pinging it, doesn't work.

> ...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
> Slashdot is online or not.

It's one of the major sites for OSS, certainly one of the busiest ones.
It's the closest thing to reporting that microsoft.com is down for the OSS
side.
 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Spiceru » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:48:54




> ...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
> Slashdot is online or not.  They haven't been interesting for, oh, about
> three years now.  Like Suck and Feed, Slashdot is a faux-hip, "we're
> such rebels" corporate lapdog.  * 'em.  I hope they die.

> Regards,

> organic

OK - what do you read online to get linux/unix news?  I'd just like to
know where a good news site is.  (Normally I read linuxtoday.com,
dslreports.com, freshmeat.net, and slashdot.org).
 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Jan Johanso » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:04:03







> > > I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
> > > I tried this:

http://www.veryComputer.com/://www.s

Quote:> > > lash dot.org/

> > > Can't reach it either.

> > > Try pinging it, doesn't work.

> > ...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
> > Slashdot is online or not.

> It's one of the major sites for OSS, certainly one of the busiest ones.
> It's the closest thing to reporting that microsoft.com is down for the OSS
> side.

And you can bet your last dime that if microsoft.com ever went down that
Slashdot would be screaming at the top of their lungs about it being
penetrated and it being W2K's fault.

I'm sure they'll blame the router again and how there's is the only config
that cisco couldn't fix and despite all the kings soldiers and all the kings
men no one could put the router back together again...

However, I predict the outage to be VERY short - birdy whispers....

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Charlie Ebe » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:06:21









>> > > I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
>> > > I tried this:

>http://www.veryComputer.com/://www.s
>> > > lash dot.org/

>> > > Can't reach it either.

>> > > Try pinging it, doesn't work.

>> > ...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
>> > Slashdot is online or not.

>> It's one of the major sites for OSS, certainly one of the busiest ones.
>> It's the closest thing to reporting that microsoft.com is down for the OSS
>> side.

>And you can bet your last dime that if microsoft.com ever went down that
>Slashdot would be screaming at the top of their lungs about it being
>penetrated and it being W2K's fault.

>I'm sure they'll blame the router again and how there's is the only config
>that cisco couldn't fix and despite all the kings soldiers and all the kings
>men no one could put the router back together again...

>However, I predict the outage to be VERY short - birdy whispers....

I'll give you odd's on that one.

--
Charlie
-------

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Jan Johanso » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:11:08



Quote:> I just tried to reach slashdot, I can't reach it.
> I tried this:

http://www.veryComputer.com/://ww...

Quote:> dot.org/

> Can't reach it either.

> Try pinging it, doesn't work.

Now - want to generate some * Material?

Slashdot was KNOWN to be down for over two days recently
(http://www.veryComputer.com/) and then
again during the following tuesday (same link)

however, take a look at Netcraft's infamous uptime chart:
http://www.veryComputer.com/
org

according to them it was last down 46 days ago...

Can you say -
custom-modified-TCP-header-info-designed-to-trick-uptime-agents? I knew you
could...

So next time someone says, "Hey, look at this linux site, Netcraft says it's
been up 300 days" point to this example of obviously erroneous reporting and
say, "Can't Trust It"

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Cray Dryg » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:59:22




Quote:>And you can bet your last dime that if microsoft.com ever went down
>that Slashdot would be screaming at the top of their lungs about it
>being penetrated and it being W2K's fault.

>I'm sure they'll blame the router again and how there's is the only
>config that cisco couldn't fix and despite all the kings soldiers and
>all the kings men no one could put the router back together again...

Funny how you ignore the key difference that makes that legitimate.

Slashdot is run by a group of two-bit hacks who readily admit that
they're a bunch of two-bit hacks.  Did you read the article about the
last outage?  The come right out and say they had no idea what they were
doing, but dammit, they were going to fix that router anyway!  Not to
mention that Slash, the back end software, is a horrible, buggy mess,
and everybody knows it.

Microsoft.com is run by well-paid supposed professionals, but more
importantly, it's run on the very software that MS not only creates, but
promotes for its ability to handle websites just like theirs!  Go to
their site and read about the "five nines" (99.999% reliability).  Go to
Slashdot and read about...oh wait, the only part of it they made is
Slash, which they admit is buggy, and only give to others as a courtesy,
not as a real product (though they're working on improving it).

So yes, we laugh at Microsoft when they can't even keep software that
they themselves wrote working properly, and we have sympathy for
Slashdot when their insanely expensive router all but bursts into
flames.

--
Cray Drygu
cray [at]             [dot] org
          indecisions

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Cray Dryg » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:04:45




Quote:>Slashdot was KNOWN to be down for over two days recently

>however, take a look at Netcraft's infamous uptime chart:

>according to them it was last down 46 days ago...

>Can you say -
>custom-modified-TCP-header-info-designed-to-trick-uptime-agents? I
>knew you could...

Um, no.  No, no, no, no, no.  And in fact, if you thought for just a
little bit about why you're wrong, I'm sure you could come up with the
answer, especially considering it jumped right out at me, and I've been
awake for over 21 hours.  I'll just explain, though.

Slashdot's servers most likely were up for 46 days when you checked.  
Considering Netcraft uses TCP headers to determine that, it would make
sense that the info would only reset when the physical server hosting
the TCP stack that's being queried goes down.

Slashdot's router went down.  More likely than not, the servers behind
that router stayed up.

Besides, if you're going to fake an uptime, why only 46 days?

--
Cray Drygu
cray [at]             [dot] org
          indecisions

 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by JS/P » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:57:45





> >Slashdot was KNOWN to be down for over two days recently

> >however, take a look at Netcraft's infamous uptime chart:

> >according to them it was last down 46 days ago...

> >Can you say -
> >custom-modified-TCP-header-info-designed-to-trick-uptime-agents? I
> >knew you could...

> Um, no.  No, no, no, no, no.  And in fact, if you thought for just a
> little bit about why you're wrong, I'm sure you could come up with the
> answer, especially considering it jumped right out at me, and I've been
> awake for over 21 hours.  I'll just explain, though.

> Slashdot's servers most likely were up for 46 days when you checked.
> Considering Netcraft uses TCP headers to determine that, it would make
> sense that the info would only reset when the physical server hosting
> the TCP stack that's being queried goes down.

> Slashdot's router went down.  More likely than not, the servers behind
> that router stayed up.

> Besides, if you're going to fake an uptime, why only 46 days?

Im still waiting for some definitive proof that Netcrafts uptime report is
anything more than a wild guess.
I consider it a (weighted) random number generator. And have seen absolutely
nothing which shows uptime after having it GET the header from my server and
examining the outgoing packets that my server sends.
 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Ayende Rahie » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:19:00





> > ...and the larger question is why anyone should give a * whether
> > Slashdot is online or not.  They haven't been interesting for, oh, about
> > three years now.  Like Suck and Feed, Slashdot is a faux-hip, "we're
> > such rebels" corporate lapdog.  * 'em.  I hope they die.

> > Regards,

> > organic

> OK - what do you read online to get linux/unix news?  I'd just like to
> know where a good news site is.  (Normally I read linuxtoday.com,
> dslreports.com, freshmeat.net, and slashdot.org).

kuro5shin.org
 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Ayende Rahie » Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:20:55





> >Slashdot was KNOWN to be down for over two days recently

> >however, take a look at Netcraft's infamous uptime chart:

> >according to them it was last down 46 days ago...

> >Can you say -
> >custom-modified-TCP-header-info-designed-to-trick-uptime-agents? I
> >knew you could...

> Um, no.  No, no, no, no, no.  And in fact, if you thought for just a
> little bit about why you're wrong, I'm sure you could come up with the
> answer, especially considering it jumped right out at me, and I've been
> awake for over 21 hours.  I'll just explain, though.

> Slashdot's servers most likely were up for 46 days when you checked.
> Considering Netcraft uses TCP headers to determine that, it would make
> sense that the info would only reset when the physical server hosting
> the TCP stack that's being queried goes down.

> Slashdot's router went down.  More likely than not, the servers behind
> that router stayed up.

In their report, they said they rebooted everything, multiply times.
(Why do you've to reboot a linux, btw?)
So this doesn't hold.

Quote:> Besides, if you're going to fake an uptime, why only 46 days?

I don't think that they fake it, it just shows that Netcraft can't keep
track of real uptimes.
 
 
 

Slashdot down again?

Post by Mart van de Weg » Fri, 06 Jul 2001 02:20:16








>> >Slashdot was KNOWN to be down for over two days recently

>> >however, take a look at Netcraft's infamous uptime chart:

>> >according to them it was last down 46 days ago...

>> >Can you say -
>> >custom-modified-TCP-header-info-designed-to-trick-uptime-agents? I
>> >knew you could...

>> Um, no.  No, no, no, no, no.  And in fact, if you thought for just a
>> little bit about why you're wrong, I'm sure you could come up with the
>> answer, especially considering it jumped right out at me, and I've been
>> awake for over 21 hours.  I'll just explain, though.

>> Slashdot's servers most likely were up for 46 days when you checked.
>> Considering Netcraft uses TCP headers to determine that, it would make
>> sense that the info would only reset when the physical server hosting
>> the TCP stack that's being queried goes down.

>> Slashdot's router went down.  More likely than not, the servers behind
>> that router stayed up.

> In their report, they said they rebooted everything, multiply times.
> (Why do you've to reboot a linux, btw?) So this doesn't hold.

<snip>

No, they didn't. They said they rebooted the router(s) multiple times.
The web server was not mentioned, and it is the web server that is
counted by Netcraft.
And as I pointed out in another thread, Netcraft very honestly states
right out that web server uptime is *not* the same as availability.

Mart

--
Playing for the high one, dancing with the devil,
Going with the flow, it's all the same to me,
Seven or Eleven, snake eyes watching you,
Double up or quit, double stake or split, The Ace Of Spades