|
Grex > Coop11 > #249: Internet Connectivity Revisited |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 44 of 176:
|
Apr 26 17:45 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 45 of 176:
|
Apr 27 00:32 UTC 2001 |
resp:44
(you're joking, right?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 46 of 176:
|
Apr 27 02:10 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 47 of 176:
|
Apr 27 02:38 UTC 2001 |
It doesn't normally take 30 seconds for me to move from one item to
another in Backtalk. The speed of web browsing on Grex is about what
I've come to expect from other sites. Maybe I'm just too used to my
28.8 modem connection, and when I've had more bandwidth for a while I'll
start to get annoyed with sites that don't load instantaneously.
|
scott
|
|
response 48 of 176:
|
Apr 27 11:10 UTC 2001 |
With Backtalk you're probably also seeing processing delays.
|
carson
|
|
response 49 of 176:
|
Apr 27 12:55 UTC 2001 |
resp:46
(from Arbornet's "support" command):
Patron Member Guest
Inbound telnet ports 64 56 48 from Michigan,
28 otherwise
(again, you're joking, right?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 50 of 176:
|
Apr 27 13:58 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 51 of 176:
|
Apr 27 15:06 UTC 2001 |
resp:50
("As a current Board member and former staff member, I am pretty
convinced I know more about what is going on that you do?" that's
just *too* easy.) :P
(again, you're joking, right? I haven't even addressed site-bans
yet.) ;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 52 of 176:
|
Apr 27 15:22 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pfv
|
|
response 53 of 176:
|
Apr 27 15:33 UTC 2001 |
Site-bans are also "normal": grex uses them as well..
Any admin uses them.
Only an idiot would NOT use them.
(For what and why is your issue).
|
jep
|
|
response 54 of 176:
|
Apr 27 15:42 UTC 2001 |
I apologize for any part I've had in turning this into a Grex vs. M-Net
battle. That's not any goal or interest of mine. I only meant to
support the idea that Grex runs too slowly; it's speed is a problem.
|
carson
|
|
response 55 of 176:
|
Apr 27 16:32 UTC 2001 |
resp:52
(so you admit that such limitations had been implemented? I'll
grant that the text I cited was revised only as recently as March 18,
2000, so if Arbornet has moved away from limiting tty allocations
based on donor status [of which I was aware] and IP address [of which
I was not aware] since that time because of the actions of a script
kiddie from Brighton and a rogue staff member, then cheers to them.
that doesn't explain away the xenophobic attitude apparently supported
by most of Arbornet.)
(then again, you seem to think that Chinet moved to NT along with
CBBS. ;P you might want to look at the finger output from
chinet.chinet.com again.)
resp:53
(in the interest of clarifying the misinformation you seem to provide
so willingly, I'll note that Grex used a site ban once, as previously
posted in the Coop conference, when contact with a particular site's
sysadmins failed to yield productive results. it was a big deal then,
and was lifted fairly shortly thereafter. if you're aware of any
other time Grex has used a site ban, feel free to point it out.) :P
---
(frankly, if the only things people can pick out about resp:37 are
the mentions of port allocations and Backtalk, then I'm pribly very
much on the mark.)
(jep, out of curiosity, what sort of net connection are you using?
I'm currently using a cable modem, and never have to wait more than
a minute for a page to load, even with a full 20 responses. I had
similar response times while in Québec, using whatever connection
Université Laval had at the time. have you considered that perhaps
the delays in Backtalk aren't necessarily on Grex's end?)
|
carson
|
|
response 56 of 176:
|
Apr 27 16:34 UTC 2001 |
(jep slipped. I agree that criticisms of Arbornet should pribly be
left to another item. however, I'd add that experiences that they
and other systems have had after "upgrading" are certainly worth
considering when discussing issues of speed.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 57 of 176:
|
Apr 27 16:42 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 58 of 176:
|
Apr 27 18:29 UTC 2001 |
re #55: I believe my network connection at work is a pair of T1s running
through the Sterling Commerce network, which is provided by our parent
company, SBC.
|
mdw
|
|
response 59 of 176:
|
Apr 30 01:42 UTC 2001 |
Grex does "block sites" (using tcpd) with some frequency. Usually these
attract no notice and generate no complaints because they involve sites
*only* used by a vandal. The most recent case involved a mail bomber
from Poland who liked to running a mail based DOS attack involving us
and about 2-3 other "free" Unix sites.
|
janc
|
|
response 60 of 176:
|
Apr 30 03:07 UTC 2001 |
I think the difference in web conferencing speed on M-Net and Grex are mostly
due to processing delays. M-Net's machine is substantially faster and usually
substantially more lightly loaded. Network delays probably contribute, but
not so much. I'm not sure how the different software platforms compare - I
think WebYapp is less heavily scripted than Backtalk, which should give it
a performance advantage, but I've done some things to upgrade the backend
(like index files for all items) that might well make up the difference.
I'd be reluctant to do co-location, but for several months now I've had the
only key to the pumpkin. I haven't used it, and no other staff member has
borrowed it from me, so I know for a fact that no human being has been in that
room for a long time. (We should start worrying about backups.)
On the other hand, I can't imagine a lot of places being eager to colocate
our current hardware - a number of large oldly awkwardly shaped boxes strung
together by a morass of wires. Everyone visiting the colo facility would
point at it and say, "what the hell is that mess?"
|
scg
|
|
response 61 of 176:
|
Apr 30 07:42 UTC 2001 |
Well yeah, it probably would have to be cleaned up and rack mounted. It would
have to be moved as well, meaning that it wouldn't be much more work for Grex
to rack mount its stuff than it would be for anybody moving into a colo
facility. Grex even has that rack mount Sun 690 case sitting in the Pumpkin.
Anyhow, Grex's current cabling mess is not a feature. Stuff would be much
more managable even wehre it currently is if that were cleaned up.
|
janc
|
|
response 62 of 176:
|
May 2 01:10 UTC 2001 |
I'd forgotten that we had rack mount cases. It's true that we could fit the
whole thing into a rack without much pain.
|
devnull
|
|
response 63 of 176:
|
May 2 23:28 UTC 2001 |
I'd be interested in seeing photos of the existing wiring mess if anyone
wanted to take the time to put them on the web.
I think if Grex could find the right friendly colo provider, colo would
be a good way to go, but my experience also indicates that if you don't
personally know some of the people at the colo facility, life can be painful.
(At one point, I was working for a company that hosted its web server at Level
3. On two occasions, they lost our network connection. I physically went
over there, since it took all of ten minutes to walk from the office to the
colo facility, and then got to call the people in Denver to get the problem
fixed, and the folks in Denver just didn't seem to care all that much.
In spite of the fact that we were paying like $1200/mo for the rack and
bandwidth.)
|
janc
|
|
response 64 of 176:
|
May 3 02:50 UTC 2001 |
The problem with finding a colo provider with a friendly person working at
is is that nobody seems to stay in jobs like that for very long.
|
mdw
|
|
response 65 of 176:
|
May 5 05:00 UTC 2001 |
$1200/mo is a lot more than we pay now. If that's the going rate,
switching won't save us any $. Another factor to consider is: right
now, the pumpkin has extra storage space for spares, future development,
etc., essentially "for free". A colo deal is *very* unlikely to include
such space. That means any spares, development work, etc., would have
to take place "elsewhere" - either in space we rent for the purpose (in
which case we're right back to the pumpkin case), or in people's private
homes. We've had a policy in the past of avoiding using people's
private homes for storage - and in the cases where grex has violated
this (including the CE warehouse which we got "for free") it has never
worked well in the long run.
An additional factor to consider is "who" has "what" kind of access.
What we'd like to have is unlimited 24 hr access for about 6-8 staff
members. Most of the work done will be after hours or weekends, because
that's when our volunteer staff has time. What we found is that colo
deals typically only include access during "business" hours, and usually
want to limit access to the smallest # of people possible -- 1-2. This
is very similar to the type of access we had at CE. This works great,
as long as the equipment works and no upgrades are done (or are planned
*very* carefully in advance). It also works well for most commercial
businesses, which have full-time staff during regular hours, and enough
budget to replace any or all hardware if it's even remotely suspected of
being flakey. It works terribly if something goes flakey and one is
trying to conserve money and not replace things until proven guilty, and
it really sucks when something goes dead at the start of a long weekend.
We had both of these problems at CE.
|
scg
|
|
response 66 of 176:
|
May 5 05:50 UTC 2001 |
Only one of the colo providers I was dealing with in SE Michigan before I
moved had that sort of time restrictions.
Colo prices are something that vary considerably, depending on what sort of
facility it's in, what market they're selling to, and that sort of thing.
$1200 per month is certainly a valid datapoint, but certainly not the cheapest
it comes.
|
devnull
|
|
response 67 of 176:
|
May 6 01:42 UTC 2001 |
There are rare cases of people staying at ISP jobs consistently. However,
I don't know of any such people around Ann Arbor.
|
krj
|
|
response 68 of 176:
|
May 25 13:15 UTC 2001 |
Covad released a financial report yesterday. It's not pretty.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2001/05/24/financial1
922EDT0395.DTL
> Three months after it was scheduled to release its 2000 financial
> results, high-speed Internet provider Covad Communications Group Inc.
> reported a $1.4 billion loss Thursday and lowered its results for
> previous quarters.
>
> Santa Clara-based Covad also disclosed that its auditors have raised
> doubts about whether it will remain an ongoing concern. Chairman
> Charles McMinn said the company has enough cash to stay in business
> through the second quarter of 2002 and is seeking additional funding.
Well, the bit about staying in business for a year is somewhat reassuring.
|