Re: Conversations with an Ethernet watcher


mills@dcn6.arpa
13-Feb-86 19:38:33-UT


Jay,

I don't want to prolong the agony more than the issue justifies, so subsequent
bickering should probably be restricted between us. However, to your point:
Each of your SMTP connections - one or more - should have a user timeout in
any case, so that your concern more properly is represented by the question
whether more than a single such connection can deliver the throughput required
in the face of occasional (likely) temporary hangups. It's not hard to generate
an engineering answer to this question, given the expected (or measured) incidence
of hangup, timeout interval and so forth. Next, you compute the network bandwidth
necessary to accomplish all the successful and not-so-successful transactions,
then construct a requirements analysis, then procure the necessary bucks. When
the last step fails you go back and try to make what you can afford work the
best way it can, which was the point of my memo.

I would be tickled pink to participate in an exercise designed to explore
the scenario space of our present mail system. Can you (or anyone) at some
"busy" site provide data on the number of SMTP agents active at any time,
retransmission parameters, failure messages and all that stuff? Ed Cain of
the Testing Task Force has been stirring that pot as well. I have rather extensive
logs on our fuzzies, but the volume of mail traffic is underwhelming.

Dave
-------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:35:40 GMT