Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C10k problem

C10k problem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my attempts to find information on this topic, every page I found that mentioned "C10K problem" either used the term as a given without justifying it, or referred to the Kegel page referenced in this page, which implies that such a limit exists, without substantiating the implication, and then deal entirely with ways to increase the amount of traffic a web server can handle without any of that text relying on a 10K limit in particular. I don't see that this is a notable topic because it seems to be one person's name for an unsubstantiated phenomenon, and I don't find any evidence that that 10K limit exists. So, possible WP:N and possible WP:V. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - C10K Problem is very real. Simoncpu (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have evidence for this? Since the problem I cited is that I couldn't find real evidence of it, and none is given in the article, we need more than a repetition of the belief that it exists to help us out. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kegel's thesis is the evidence of the problem that we have been experiencing for quite some time now. The C10K label caught on because that label makes sense. Many software developers need not much convincing of its existence because it's pretty obvious. My first impression that someone was questioning its WP:N was "duh." WP:V is possible though. Here are some of the links that reference the C10K Problem. Simoncpu (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1534139
    - http://www.springerlink.com/content/85xku4751816hu24/
    - http://www.wandisco.com/pdf/dcone-whitepaper.pdf
    - http://www.lanl.gov/radiant/pubs/hptcp/tcpwindow.ps
    - http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~kaushikv/papers/sirocco_febid.pdf
    - http://cs.uni-salzburg.at/~ck/teaching/CS-Seminar-Summer-2004/claudiu-survey.pdf
    - http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/papers/seda-hotos01.pdf
    - The first two links above describe something that was given the name "reverse C10k problem" based on the existence of the alleged C10k problem. Every other one of these mentions it and refers the reader, every time, to Kegel's page, http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html. And on that page, all he says is, "It's time for web servers to handle ten thousand clients simultaneously, don't you think? After all, the web is a big place now." He, like all the other sources, makes a remark that presupposes there actually is such a limit as the C10k limit, while not providing us with any evidence that anyone has ever actually found there to be such a limit of approximately 10,000 connections. I'm not saying I disbelieve it, but I am saying that so far the "evidence" that has been provided doesn't lift it above the level of "a common conception", doesn't distinguish it from any urban legend or old wive's tale. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem is not really the 10K connections. The problem is that if the server is not programmed with this "aim", then the server has capable of serving few connections (more than hardware supports). Servers that attach C10k problem, really attach the problem that programming it for that the limitation was the hardware of the server and not the software. And 10K connections is a reasonable limit for such aim. But it's true that there is only one reference (in essence). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If there are published academic papers referring to a variant of it (the reverse C10K)m, then it seems reasonable that the problem that is the basis for that name must be very well known in its field. I think the evidence shows some degree of notability. Question, though: is Kegel notable enough for an article--if so, there's a possible merge .
- Hoaxes, legends, and misconceptions can be very well known. I think the issue here is whether it's real. If a topic in information technology were notable, it's very hard to imagine that it would be so difficult to find anything substantiating it on the Web; and if no one can provide any resource (unlike the ones given above) that substantiates it rather than presupposing it, it's tough to see what an article on it could be about. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To clarify, the "limit" is certainly not any kind of hard limit; as noted above there won't be any citations found to support this limit. It is simply a recognition that certain kinds of very popular server architectures can't get much beyond a few thousand simultaneous connections. See yaws (web server) - different threading systems are one way to get beyond this limit, lighttpd uses another, select/poll/epoll. I'm confused by this AFD proposal. Can someone enlighten me about the WP:V complaint? Is there some question that web servers like apache run into these limits? WP:N is just crazy talk - see the papers linked above, see the lighttpd article - it was created in response to c10k! ErikHaugen (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]