nanog mailing list archives
Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash?
From: John Kristoff <jtk () cymru com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 11:51:47 -0500
On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 23:19:02 -0400 Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
This guy seems to think so, and his arguments seem pretty convincing to me, but I don't understand the financial system as well as I might.
Interesting Jay, thanks for forwarding that. I'm not convinced, but I could be. Interesting hypothesis that, at least for me, raises more questions that I'm not qualified to answer either. Perhaps most fundamentally, what and where exactly is the "queue" in the transmission system that Nanex refers to? It would seem surprising that delays in general due to long queues would not have been noticed before, since or would have caused other more far reaching problems. If there is serious debate about the cause of the problem, then it may be necessary to invite an independent, neutral party to fully investigate. One has to ask, wouldn't it be convenient for Nanex if queueing delay from others into their systems were the cause? John
Current thread:
- Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Jay Ashworth (Aug 02)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? John Kristoff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Christopher Morrow (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Sean Donelan (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? joel jaeggli (Aug 06)
- RE: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Matthew Huff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Christopher Morrow (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? John Kristoff (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? William Herrin (Aug 06)
- Re: Did *bufferbloat* cause the 2010 flashcrash? Harlan Stenn (Aug 06)