DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
716e62524a
The forced renewal needs sudo on the host, and the host asks for a password. That blocks the injection, not the experiment — the part worth doing first was the control anyway. Control 1 — new connections, 0.2s x 900 over 180s: 900/900 = 200, zero failures. The noise floor is 0, so a single non-200 during the renewal can be attributed to the renewal. Without this the observation would have been uninterpretable, which is the mistake A-6 made calling a -41% control "no effect" and A-8 made claiming zero-downtime from 9 samples. Control 2 — the poll cannot answer the question the plan actually asked. TLS handshakes were 900/900, meaning every request is a fresh connection, so it measures "are new connections accepted", not "what happens to a request already in flight". A separate device: the 845KB admin console bundle pulled at --limit-rate 20k, holding one request open for 42 seconds. Baseline 200 / 845361 bytes / 1 connection. Monitors are running under setsid, and stop three minutes after the certificate serial changes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
20 lines
804 B
Plaintext
20 lines
804 B
Plaintext
D-4 대조군 — 주입 없는 상태의 가용성 잡음 바닥
|
|
수집 시각(dev): 2026-09-04T08:03:07Z UTC
|
|
대상: https://auth.hyeonworks.com/realms/master · 0.2초 간격 900회 = 180초
|
|
형식: http_code time_total time_appconnect(TLS 핸드셰이크까지)
|
|
왜: 갱신 중 000 이 한 번 나와도, 평시 오류율을 모르면 그게 갱신 탓인지 알 수 없다.
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
표본 900 개
|
|
|
|
[상태코드 분포]
|
|
900 200
|
|
|
|
[응답시간 ms]
|
|
최소 67 중앙 98 p95 195 최대 1121 평균 106.9
|
|
|
|
[TLS 핸드셰이크 ms — 0 이면 연결 재사용, >0 이면 새 핸드셰이크]
|
|
핸드셰이크 발생 900회 / 900 평균 83 ms 최대 1100 ms
|
|
|
|
[비정상 응답 원문 — 있으면 아래에 전부]
|
|
비200 총 0
|