Slashdot Mirror


Skype Crashes and Burns In Worldwide Outage

Stoobalou writes "VoIP and instant messaging service Skype has disappeared from the Internet, nary a fortnight after Microsoft snaffled up the outfit in a $8.5 billion deal."

38 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Is everybody really that stupid? by Aquitaine · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft is not running Skype yet. It takes months for these deals to go through. And TFA suggests that Skype has never gone down before, which is BS. 'Disappeared from the Internet'? Seriously?

    The only useful thing in this submission is that I learned the word 'snaffled.'

    1. Re:Is everybody really that stupid? by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even worse, the article says www.skype.com is unavailable. I just went there and it loaded up instantly and completely. Pretty sure the whole thing's bullshit, just someone with an axe to grind.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    2. Re:Is everybody really that stupid? by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      "The only useful thing in this submission is that I learned the word 'snaffled.'"

      Damnit, and on the one day in the month that I don't have mod points!

    3. Re:Is everybody really that stupid? by Tsingi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft is not running Skype yet. It takes months for these deals to go through. And TFA suggests that Skype has never gone down before, which is BS. 'Disappeared from the Internet'? Seriously?

      The only useful thing in this submission is that I learned the word 'snaffled.'

      It's a safe assumption that the word snaffled derives from the early Latin acronym, snafu, which translates: Situation Normal All Fucked Up.

    4. Re:Is everybody really that stupid? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even worse, the article says www.skype.com is unavailable. I just went there and it loaded up instantly and completely. Pretty sure the whole thing's bullshit, just someone with an axe to grind.

      Or a routing issue that only affects some customers. Or a geographic load-balance issue where people from a certain area are seeing a broken site.

      (It's working for me from NYC area at the moment.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    5. Re:Is everybody really that stupid? by ygslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      The web site was down for a short time. First down completely, then 505 and redirect to a static backup page. Now it's working again.

  2. haters gonna hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I confess to having run Internet publications using Skype as an instant messaging service for over seven years now.
    In all that time the service has never once failed - until today.

    So you don't remember December's outage, do you? Haters gonna hate.

  3. works in NYC by alen · · Score: 2

    maybe this is a european thing?

    1. Re:works in NYC by geegel · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was an XML glitch, corrupting the config.xml and/or shared.xml files, which are locally stored. They need to be removed manually, since a reinstall won't touch them. Anyway, this led to a surge of traffic to skype.com, the predictable /. effect and a lot of FUD.

      --
      right...
  4. A bit short on factual information. by Arkaic · · Score: 2

    I call bullshit. From the article - "In all that time the service has never once failed - until today." Perhaps it never failed for the author previously, but Skype has had several notable outages in its history. I'm not huge fan of M$, but the article shows nothing to justify blaming this on M$.

  5. Like father like son by Progman3K · · Score: 3, Funny

    So Skype is already adopting MS's reliability

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:Like father like son by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Man, I'm so tired of hearing this. I have shops with Solairis, Linux and Windows and you know what uptimes are damn close. Solaris still wins out over Linux and Windows in the uptime department but this lame MS beating is just getting too old.

      Maybe you should go beat on Google for the holes in Android app security?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Like father like son by Locutus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      some of us have been around the block for too many years to not have fun with this. Microsoft may have finally got a version of their OS uptimes high enough to not require redundant servers(hardware) with failover but it's taken them decades to finally do it. Not to mention the huge increase in man hours it's taken to support Windows systems. They are a joke because they earned it.

      Many of us lived through the hardships of a conversion from UNIX to Windows and it has not been pretty. I'm reminded of how Microsoft themselves has quite the difficulty converting Hotmail from UNIX to Windows. It's been said it took about 2x the hardware to finally get Hotmail running on Windows instead of UNIX. You don't shake that off unless you're either a newbie, a fanboi, or both.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  6. Re:Hotmail all over again by mewshi_nya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or, you know, it could just be a server issue. If you look, and ask Skype users, the outage is already over.

    I know, not as fun as MS-bashing, but the best bashing is based on fact.

  7. Re:Whoops by olehenning · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you're lucky enough to live in North America that is. Google Voice isn't internationally available as far as I know.

  8. Say again? by Mascot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Been connected to Skype, and chatting, all day. No issues. www.skype.com working just fine.

    With statements like "has disappeared from the Internet" and "worldwide outage", I would expect to have... you know.. have noticed something?

    So, let's rephrase TFS to something more like: "Some users/areas experiencing issues reaching Skype servers and services"

    1. Re:Say again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, let's rephrase TFS to something more like: "Some guy with a blog that hates Microsoft is experiencing issues reaching Skype servers and services and then submitted a link to Slashdot because Slashdot hates Microsoft. And Apple. And has issues with Linux. Y'know what, slashdot hates everything to do with computers."

  9. Stop whining... by geegel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Step 1: Uninstall Skype

    Step 2: Go to %AppData%\Skype\YourUsername rename config.xml to config.bak

    Step 3: Go to %AppData%\Skype rename shared.xml to shared.bak

    Step 4: Reinstall Skype

    Step 5: Profit!

    --
    right...
    1. Re:Stop whining... by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 5, Informative

      No need to uninstall Skype or touch the config.xml file. Just rename shared.xml to shared.xml.bak (or simply delete it as will be recreated next time Skype runs). Job done.

    2. Re:Stop whining... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      Step 1: Uninstall Skype

      Step 2: Go to %AppData%\Skype\YourUsername rename config.xml to config.bak

      Step 3: Go to %AppData%\Skype rename shared.xml to shared.bak

      Step 4: Reinstall Skype

      Step 5: Profit!

      If I gotta do a complete reinstall* to fix a problem I didn't cause, I think I'd reserve the right to whine while doing it. That's like saying: "Quitjer bitchin' and just re-install windows!"

      *And now it looks like maybe I don't need to.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  10. Re:Hotmail all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    there was a huge outage a couple months ago...

  11. One idiot user is a worldwide outage? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    And I'm certain I've seen a skype outage story at slashdot in the past.

  12. Seriously... by kvvbassboy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am really sick of this yellow journalism that's been popping up lately on Slashdot! Whoever is putting these articles on the front page, needs to do a better job.

    It's supposed to be "News For Nerds", just report actual fucking facts related to science or tech, and not anti-MS bullshit or what color muffin Steve Jobs had for breakfast!

  13. Re:Hotmail all over again by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah but now all skype calls start with the windows 95 startup sound.....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  14. Re:Hotmail all over again by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2

    Anyone remember when Microsoft back in 2007 released an update to Windows that took out Skype's servers? Flooded Skype's servers for several days.

  15. Re:Hotmail all over again by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

    Skype was down for a while last December for millions of users

    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/12/22/skype-down-for-millions-of-users

  16. kdawson? Is that you? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Poorly researched, out of date information.
    2) Inaccurate, inflammatory headline.
    3) Short, information-free stub.

    Sure seems like him.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:kdawson? Is that you? by Combatso · · Score: 3, Funny

      or possibly CNN

  17. Re:Another Option by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have an Ooma phone. Actually it's a device that plugs into my internet router, and into which you can plug regular landline phones.

    It's like 15 bucks a *year* for taxes, and you get free calling in the US. No other charges. And you don't need to own a computer to use it. It's not like magic-jack where you need to have your computer running.

    I also put 50 bucks in my pre-pay account, so I can use 411, and make international calls. The rates are competitive to skype rates for international calls. AND, you get a real landline phone number and can make calls to landline phone numbers. So instead of messing with a computer, when I want to make an international call, I just pick up the phone and dial. If someone calls me from another country, I tell them I'll call them back since it's cheaper for me than it would be for them.

    Now the device is 200 bucks, but it's already paid for itself since I don't pay a telephone bill for a landline. And the call quality = that of any landline I've ever had.

    No monthly fee. In a year, it pays for itself, and that's it. What a great deal! If you move, take your Ooma with you, and you KEEP THE SAME PHONE NUMBER no matter where you live, ( unless you want to change it ). Cell phones are nice, but they can be expensive. And if you are required to keep one for work, then having 2 in your pocket is annoying. Ooma is a way to have your OWN phone number forever for minimal money.

    Why am I shilling? Because I want others to get a great deal. I don't want Ooma to go out of business because it gives customers such a good deal. ( I have no reason to suppose that it would.... ) For being such a good deal, I'll plug them once in a while.

    --
    ...
  18. Re:Whoops by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mod parent up.

    For what? Being completely wrong? Skype is peer-to-peer.

    Unlike other VoIP services, Skype is a peer-to-peer system rather than a client–server system, and makes use of background processing on computers running Skype software; the original name proposed – Sky peer-to-peer – reflects this.

  19. Re:Hotmail all over again by Ksevio · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only central servers are for authentication. All the communication traffic is peer-to-peer, though sometimes it will go through a third peer to overcome networking issues.

    There are also supernodes (sometimes skype owned) where many users connect to send and retrieve connection data (who's on, search, etc). A simple network traffic analyzer can confirm much of this.

  20. Re:Whoops by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we both have a presence on the internet, there's no reason to involve a third party for us to communicate.

    If you have medium term stable IPs and your own domain (though you could argue that relying on DNS is relying on a third party) then I would agree with you.

    Most client machines don't have that. Many are behind NATs and even those that aren't may not have stable IPs. P2P should be used for the actual call data where possible but servers are needed to keep track of users locations and (if you want to provide a reliable service to those behind NAT*) to provide a fallback path for call data in the event that P2P transmission is not acheivable.

    What we should really be doing is a system similar to email. With email you can either rely on a third party or host it yourself if you have an appropriate connection and there is no reason the same can't be done for VOIP.

    * SIP doesn't really get on very well with NAT and worse the provider I used liked to pin the blame on NAT for half-calls despite the fact they had worked fine in the past with the same NAT.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  21. Is Skype _really_ peer to peer? by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The evidence for it being p2p is:

    1. They say it is
    2. It uses somebody else's "background processing"

    The evidence against it being p2p is:

    1. Users just happen to have simultaneous outages.
    2. Skype user interface doesn't have any place where you enter/verify the key fingerprints of the person you're talking to. The other identity seems to have always been magically introduced to you, apparently by the one single universe-wide trusted authority, and coincidentally..
    3. ..Skype has made deals with certain governments to allow them to monitor their citizens' phone calls.

    (All being things which don't happen in a p2p system, unless at least some vital part of it isn't p2p.)

    Look at the evidence and decide. I'd say look at the source, but Skype doesn't give you that. That's right folks, they don't allow security auditing for -- no, not a game .. no, not a 3d driver -- a communications tool. I am struggling to think of a class of applications (which aren't specialized for certain industries, like nuclear, medical, aviation, etc -- I mean stuff used by "regular people") where that's more necessary.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Is Skype _really_ peer to peer? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the evidence for it being peer-to-peer is actually learning something about the technology instead or relying on some stupid article written by an idiotic FUDster. Now, authentication is done via a central server but all of the voice chat, etc is done via a peer-to-peer model using super nodes. A 3 second google search would have explained all this to you.

  22. Re:Hotmail all over again by Locutus · · Score: 2

    and they've not planted any of their executives on the board or in high places within Skype like the Nokia deal neither. Unless we see there's cause or reason for the Microsoft-ification of Skype should start before the ink is dry, we'll have to accept that it's only fun blaming Microsoft for stuff like this.

    And here's another theory based on nothing, a mass exodus of geeks from Skype who don't want to work for Microsoft either left or decided key parts of an update weren't in their best interest in bothering with. ala "oops, just kidding" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBkf0nAGqi0

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  23. Re:Whoops by AJH16 · · Score: 2

    They explained this after the last outage if you read their blog. Basically they have a defensive measure in their P2P system to prevent client machines from getting overworked and burning through bandwidth, so after a supernode hits a certain level of use, it shuts down for a period. This increases the load on other super nodes which then shut down, etc, etc until it results in a waterfall collapse of the network because there are too many clients and not enough coordinators. Since new clients can't reach a supernode (coordinator in my terms), they can not connect to the network and once enough super nodes go down, the network fractures and collapses. That's always been the problem with decentralized systems, they can only deal with so much change before they break. Some break more gracefully in to sub-networks to isolate themselves, but in the case of Skype, that doesn't really make sense. Instead they designed it to all work or all break. To some extent it will break gracefully by not allowing new connections, but some situations still will break it regardless.

    --
    AJ Henderson
  24. Re:Whoops by pr100 · · Score: 2

    "lucky enough to live in North America" ... how we laughed :)

  25. Re:Hotmail all over again by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2

    Even if we accept that Microsoft is exercising some level of control over Skype (an event I'd consider highly unlikely this early into the process, but believe what you want), there's still no way they'd be performing a major infrastructure change like a full OS changeover this quickly. I doubt you could get the code ported this quickly, let alone get it tested, a deployment plan written, everyone read into the plan, etc, etc. This isn't like replacing the OS on your home PC. We're talking hundreds or thousands of servers, running custom code, deployed internationally. If Microsoft decides to switch them over to Windows (and they may), it won't be a rush job done a few weeks after the announcement of intent to purchase. It'll happen after months of work and planning, and after the sale is final.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.