Skype-goats
Skype explains why its VOIP network imploded last week:
The disruption was triggered by a massive restart of our users' computers across the globe within a very short timeframe as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update.
The high number of restarts affected Skype's network resources. This caused a flood of log-in requests, which, combined with the lack of peer-to-peer network resources, prompted a chain reaction that had a critical impact.
Normally Skype's peer-to-peer network has an inbuilt ability to self-heal, however, this event revealed a previously unseen software bug within the network resource allocation algorithm which prevented the self-healing function from working quickly.
So Patch Tuesday managed to uncover a bug in Skype's software and brought down its network. When in doubt, blame Microsoft. It's bad enough when Microsoft makes its customers pay to beta-test software; it's almost criminal when it beta-tests other companies' software! Just add it to your list of Evil Conspiracies Perpetrated by the Sith Lords in Redmond.
But this explanation doesn't pass the smell test. If Patch Tuesday and the resulting flood of reboots and login requests triggered the meltdown, why hasn't it happened before? It's not like this is the first Patch Tuesday Skype's system has endured.
Furthermore, the default time for the Windows Update agent to run is 3 AM local time . . . on Tuesday. Skype's network didn't go down until Thursday. I guess we're supposed to believe that the vast majority of Skype users are not only all in the same time zone, but delayed updates (or at least a system reboot) by two days. What are these guys smoking?
I'm willing to bet a Dr. Pepper that Skype hosed its own network via a seemingly innocuous software update (it happens), and found Microsoft to be a convenient scapegoat. Which is puzzling, because it's not like Skype's customers would desert it in droves for this particular faux pas. After all, the basic service is free. Maybe it's because they're looking to attract more business users who will pony up for premium services, and they don't want to look stupid. Unfortunately their half-baked explanation accomplishes just that.
The disruption was triggered by a massive restart of our users' computers across the globe within a very short timeframe as they re-booted after receiving a routine set of patches through Windows Update.
The high number of restarts affected Skype's network resources. This caused a flood of log-in requests, which, combined with the lack of peer-to-peer network resources, prompted a chain reaction that had a critical impact.
Normally Skype's peer-to-peer network has an inbuilt ability to self-heal, however, this event revealed a previously unseen software bug within the network resource allocation algorithm which prevented the self-healing function from working quickly.
So Patch Tuesday managed to uncover a bug in Skype's software and brought down its network. When in doubt, blame Microsoft. It's bad enough when Microsoft makes its customers pay to beta-test software; it's almost criminal when it beta-tests other companies' software! Just add it to your list of Evil Conspiracies Perpetrated by the Sith Lords in Redmond.
But this explanation doesn't pass the smell test. If Patch Tuesday and the resulting flood of reboots and login requests triggered the meltdown, why hasn't it happened before? It's not like this is the first Patch Tuesday Skype's system has endured.
Furthermore, the default time for the Windows Update agent to run is 3 AM local time . . . on Tuesday. Skype's network didn't go down until Thursday. I guess we're supposed to believe that the vast majority of Skype users are not only all in the same time zone, but delayed updates (or at least a system reboot) by two days. What are these guys smoking?
I'm willing to bet a Dr. Pepper that Skype hosed its own network via a seemingly innocuous software update (it happens), and found Microsoft to be a convenient scapegoat. Which is puzzling, because it's not like Skype's customers would desert it in droves for this particular faux pas. After all, the basic service is free. Maybe it's because they're looking to attract more business users who will pony up for premium services, and they don't want to look stupid. Unfortunately their half-baked explanation accomplishes just that.