Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;) -- Kameron Gasso | Senior Systems Administrator | visp.net Direct: 541-955-6903 | Fax: 541-471-0821
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA). Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS. - d. On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kameron Gasso wrote:
Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;)
-- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.dominiceidson.com/
Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA).
Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS.
- d.
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Kameron Gasso wrote:
Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;)
Works fine from chicago via imap
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA).
Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS.
Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use the web interface. -j
On 2009-09-01, at 4:34 PM, James Downs wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail (the MDA).
Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS.
Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use the web interface.
-j
Google's 4:02 PM App Status update specifically said IMAP and POP were unaffected. http://www.google.com/appsstatus#rm=1&di=1&hl=en
Back up .. Nairobi Kenya. On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca> wrote:
On 2009-09-01, at 4:34 PM, James Downs wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
It appears to be much more a problem with gmail (the MUA) than gmail
(the MDA).
Gmail/imap appears to be working fine, at least from AUS.
Same thing here in the US. Pop/Imap access remains solid. I never use the web interface.
-j
Google's 4:02 PM App Status update specifically said IMAP and POP were unaffected.
-- Samson Oduor
Kameron Gasso wrote:
Yep, it's been throwing 502 HTTP errors for about 25 minutes now. We've been getting a handful of calls from frantic Gmail users wondering why we broke their interwebs. ;)
Somehow it's always our fault, isn't it? :P (Sorry about the earlier top-posting...have been forced to switch to Outlook, and just discovered Outlook QuiteFix.) -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana@fsr.com
The minute I saw your question, I tabbed over to an open session, and sure enough... -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana@fsr.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jwininger@indianafiber.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:02 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods. -- Scott From: Jim Wininger <jwininger@indianafiber.net> To: <nanog@nanog.org> Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM Subject: Issues with Gmail Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
FWIW: http://gmail.com doesn't work for me either right now, but I've read the whole "Issues with Gmail" thread and posted this email via GMail POP and GMail SMTP.... Glenn.S.Johnson@gmail.com On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Scott Brown/Clack/ESD wrote:
Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods.
-- Scott
From: Jim Wininger <jwininger@indianafiber.net>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM
Subject: Issues with Gmail
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? -- Jim Wininger
access via igoogle via a web client works as well ... On Sep 1, 2009 4:25pm, Glenn Johnson <glenn.s.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
FWIW:
http://gmail.com doesn't work for me either right now, but I've read the whole "Issues with Gmail" thread and posted this email via GMail POP and GMail SMTP....
Glenn.S.Johnson@gmail.com
On Sep 1, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Scott Brown/Clack/ESD wrote:
Gmail and Google Apps are down in our neck of the woods.
--
Scott
From: Jim Wininger jwininger@indianafiber.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org>
Date: 09/01/2009 01:02 PM
Subject: Issues with Gmail
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
--
Jim Wininger
Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
More specifically? -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
From Spint EVD0 I get Unable to reach Gmail. Please check your internet connection. Trying to reconnect now… Marshall On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
More specifically?
-- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Yup, it's down. http://thenextweb.com/2009/09/01/google-experiencing-downtime-world/# http://www.google.com/appsstatus#hl=en Been down for the past twenty minutes or so for me in Chapel Hill, NC. Other Google services seem to be working fine. Shaddi On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:01:46 -0400, Jim Wininger <jwininger@indianafiber.net> wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
http://mail.google.com/support/?hl=en -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867
On 01/09/2009 21:01, Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Down, definitely down. Call the White House! It should be clear that the root cause here is a lack of regulation, so could someone phone Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) _urgently_ and advise him that the only way to stop problems like this happening in future is to ensure that the government has a firm grip of the steering wheel at all these web2.0 companies. Also, rather than letting these trendy, fashionable Googlers attempt to fix critical systems like gmail, that real service problems like this ought to be fixed by accredited cyber security professionals, preferably ones which can demonstrate their computing ability by wearing a suit and tie. If we've learned anything in the telecommunications world, it's that if any organisation can respond quickly to a problem and deal with it efficiently and effectively, it's a Government. Nick
As a government-employed computer security guy who has never owned or worn a suit OR tie, I feel entitled to ask... WTF? Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 01/09/2009 21:01, Jim Wininger wrote:
Anyone else seeing issues with gmail?
Down, definitely down. Call the White House!
It should be clear that the root cause here is a lack of regulation, so could someone phone Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) _urgently_ and advise him that the only way to stop problems like this happening in future is to ensure that the government has a firm grip of the steering wheel at all these web2.0 companies. Also, rather than letting these trendy, fashionable Googlers attempt to fix critical systems like gmail, that real service problems like this ought to be fixed by accredited cyber security professionals, preferably ones which can demonstrate their computing ability by wearing a suit and tie.
If we've learned anything in the telecommunications world, it's that if any organisation can respond quickly to a problem and deal with it efficiently and effectively, it's a Government.
Nick
<bleep> happens and services break. the internet is a wonderful demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components. but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users affected, and o too many foolish people giving their private data to a data miner to whom they actually yeild rights to those data and who seems to store them for a scary long time. randy
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
<bleep> happens and services break. the internet is a wonderful demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users affected, and
o too many foolish people giving their private data to a data miner to whom they actually yeild rights to those data and who seems to store them for a scary long time.
Amazing what we will pay for free service. -M< -- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
There's a post-mortem on the gmail blog: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-todays-gmail-issue.html
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
[....] the internet is a wonderful demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users affected, and
I choose to not assume to "what/which single point of failure" this reference by Randy applies. However, we can take confidence in the fact that Google's Gmail service architecture is distributed; not to be interpreted of course, as suggesting that within the distribution, there isn't a single point of failure. Perhaps, from a network operations point of view, the point needs elaboration.
o too many foolish people giving their private data to a data miner to whom they actually yeild rights to those data and who seems to store them for a scary long time.
Naturally, this is a separate issue, and indeed a very prickly one, which is beyond the charter of NANOG. Therefore, I refrain from penning any thoughts on it. All the best, Robert. --
On 09/02/2009 10:33 AM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush<randy@psg.com> wrote:
[....] the internet is a wonderful demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users affected, and
I choose to not assume to "what/which single point of failure" this reference by Randy applies. However, we can take confidence in the fact that Google's Gmail service architecture is distributed; not to be interpreted of course, as suggesting that within the distribution, there isn't a single point of failure. Perhaps, from a network operations point of view, the point needs elaboration.
I think that Randy might be conflating single point of failure with "resilience". Google, distributed on every level as it is, is still just one operator and in this case the lemmings faithfully followed each other into the sea. We've been on an anti-resilience binge for quite some time, accelerated to warp speed by the advent of the Internet itself. There's something to be said about not having all of your police scanners, etc, etc on the internet from a resilience standpoint, but the siren call is strong for good reasons too. Mike
Michael Thomas wrote:
I think that Randy might be conflating single point of failure with "resilience". Google, distributed on every level as it is, is still just one operator and in this case the lemmings faithfully followed each other into the sea. We've been on an anti-resilience binge for quite some time, accelerated to warp speed by the advent of the Internet itself. There's something to be said about not having all of your police scanners, etc, etc on the internet from a resilience standpoint, but the siren call is strong for good reasons too.
Mike
As I have mentioned to Randy separately, my interest was to understand whether he had made the "single point of failure" reference colloquially, or in a /critical infrastructure/ context. Some treat, and relate to the Internet as though it is a part of /"critical infrastructures."/ I simply wished to better understand the point of reference. A caveat... in stating this above... it is not a personal intention, to now originate a vacuous and malodorous thread on NANOG regarding the Internet's place in critical infrastructures. Surely, that cannot be resolved here, in this community. Regards, Robert. --
On 09/02/2009 11:20 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Long before we has widespread commercial internet, we still had to have the backup plan for when the single highly fault tollerant entitity on which we were dependant on for a particular service went out.
Sometimes, that plan is wait for restoration, whether it was because the bell systems got a bit melty on the long distance, or because your regional utility managed to melt down the power grid taking out both substations providing diverse feeds.
Systemic but temporarly localized failured has existed as long as the weather. One can move the failure around but I think I can confidently assert that we'll never entirely eleminate it.
Right, but a cascading failure now with the internet is liable to be far more serious than back in the good old days. The electrical grid is probably an example of a system with relatively low resilience, but once it goes onto the net its resilience is vastly lessened. So we're making this grand engineering and economic trade off of less resilience for better interconnection. Which has a tendency to be a great trade off when things are going right, and a terrible one when things are going wrong :) I've always wondered what is going to happen when we have our first catastrophic cascading failure ala the blackout of 1965 or something similar but with the net instead. The real miracle of the net is that we _haven't_ had such a thing yet, but it really is only a matter of time unless somebody's willing to stand up and say that such things have been safely engineered away :) Mike
Michael Thomas<mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 09/02/2009 10:33 AM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Randy Bush<randy@psg.com> wrote:
[....] the internet is a wonderful demonstration of building a reliable network out of reliable components.
but what we have with google mail (and apps) is two scary problems
o way too many users relying on a single point of failure. so it makes the nyt when it breaks because of the number of users affected, and
I choose to not assume to "what/which single point of failure" this reference by Randy applies. However, we can take confidence in the fact that Google's Gmail service architecture is distributed; not to be interpreted of course, as suggesting that within the distribution, there isn't a single point of failure. Perhaps, from a network operations point of view, the point needs elaboration.
I think that Randy might be conflating single point of failure with "resilience". Google, distributed on every level as it is, is still just one operator and in this case the lemmings faithfully followed each other into the sea. We've been on an anti-resilience binge for quite some time, accelerated to warp speed by the advent of the Internet itself. There's something to be said about not having all of your police scanners, etc, etc on the internet from a resilience standpoint, but the siren call is strong for good reasons too.
Mike
participants (24)
-
Alex Balashov -
AMuse -
Dominic J. Eidson -
Glenn Johnson -
James Downs -
Jason Lixfeld -
Jay Farrell -
Jim Wininger -
Kameron Gasso -
Kevin Stange -
manolo hernandez -
Marshall Eubanks -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael Thomas -
Nathan Anderson -
Nick Hilliard -
Raleigh Apple -
Randy Bush -
Robert Mathews (OSIA) -
Ronald Cotoni -
Sam Oduor -
Scott Brown/Clack/ESD -
shasan -
tome.nerd＠gmail.com