|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 65 responses total. |
pfv
|
|
response 9 of 65:
| 
Apr 30 23:15 UTC 1999 |
#7 was re #5 - picospan can't handle re: for shit.
if a meal is a nickel - and you have a penny - it's an issue.
|
aruba
|
|
response 10 of 65:
|
May 1 02:39 UTC 1999 |
Re #8: Actually, our costs rose pretty much steadily from 1993 through the
fall of 1998, when we cut two phone lines and the ICNET link. They took a
dip then, then went up when we paid our first insurance premium, and are
started down again.
|
pfv
|
|
response 11 of 65:
|
May 1 02:42 UTC 1999 |
re 10:
Yeah, that's as I expected... Plus, I saw some rumbling about
perhaps needing a new net link in the near future here?
Plus, while the "pumpkin" is working again, that hassle was weird
- and I sure wouldn't bet my life that it's all "stable".
(by this I mean the lease/rent)
Even the issues have issues.
|
dang
|
|
response 12 of 65:
|
May 6 05:42 UTC 1999 |
So, those are the issues. How do we deal with them? I'm not sure that
increasingly large monolithic computers are the way to go. We'd start
running into disk I/O issues pretty quickly, even if we could keep
getting faster processors. I'd personally go for some sort of
multi-server setup. The question is, do we try and offer everything on
all servers, ala U of M login servers, or do we split up services? I,
personally, wouldn't mind a conf only server, as I don't ever to
non-staff related mail on grex and usually conf via backtalk. However,
if we continue to grow, we will need a larger net link. That will cost
money. I guess I'd like to see a continuation of our current services
in the future, accomidating as many people as is technically feasible.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 65:
|
May 6 22:00 UTC 1999 |
is it time for grex to finally upgrade toa T1 connection? grex would
seem to have the funds, and these days some people think you are in the
dark ages if you dont have a T1.
|
dang
|
|
response 14 of 65:
|
May 6 22:53 UTC 1999 |
I really doubt Grex has the funds for more than a month or two of a T1
unless some significate portion thereof was donated.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 65:
|
May 6 23:33 UTC 1999 |
oh cmon, how much per month would a good cheap T1 connection be? grex
could pay a couple hundred extra month for its connectivity than it does
now if it was that good right>
.\
|
jep
|
|
response 16 of 65:
|
May 7 02:03 UTC 1999 |
Last I knew, T1 connections ran between $1000-2000 per month.
Anyway, I don't think Grex needs a T1 connection; it seems plenty fast
to me just as it is.
|
mdw
|
|
response 17 of 65:
|
May 7 04:42 UTC 1999 |
Kerouac - our treasurer is anxiously awaiting your check to pay for the
first year's worth of T1 connectivity.
The phone company's charges for a T1 connection aren't actually all that
unreasonable. I think they're something like $300/mo. There is also
the capital expense of the T1 equipment -- that's probably a one-time
expense of around $1k-2k for the actual equipment, and another chunk of
change for the telephone's installation expenses, & there's the final
kicker - the monthly charge an ISP would charge us for T1 bandwidth
(which would cover both the costs of their per-port equipment charges,
and their network connectivity costs beyond.) $1200/mo sounds a bit high
to me, but I can't say I've priced this out recently. There is some
chance that this cost is dropping -- ideally, it should be following
Moore's law. It is also possible we might be able to get a break on
this as a non-profit, although the last time we looked, we had a hard
time finding an attractive bargain (admittedly, this was before we got
the IRS tax exemption status.)
The major advantage I can see to getting a T1 is we'd have a lot less
excuse to forbid graphics on grex web pages.
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 65:
|
May 7 04:56 UTC 1999 |
For a T1, Grex, or at least a for-profit customer in SouthEastern Michigan,
would probably be paying at least $700-$800 per month for the bandwidth, plus
the telco charge for the T1 circuit. If that T1 went to an ISP off the Ann
Arbor Main CO, it would be somewhere around $250 per month if I'm remembering
correctly. However, it's likely that the line would have to go to somewhere
in the Detroit area, which would make it more expensive. It would be far
cheaper to look at some of the SDSL stuff that's getting introduced in this
area in the next month or two.
|
mdw
|
|
response 19 of 65:
|
May 7 05:33 UTC 1999 |
Ok, that's $15,000 we'll need from you, Kerouac. When can we expect the
check?
How is SDSL related to ADSL? If it's an ameritech thing, are they still
flakey, or have they gotten their act together? What are the prospects
for a static IP subnet?
|
dang
|
|
response 20 of 65:
|
May 7 06:53 UTC 1999 |
xDSL is a new (relatively) class of connections. It stands for Digital
Subscriber Line (or Loop, depending on who you talk to.) ADSL, which is
what I have, is Async. I get 1.5 Mb down, 128 Kb up. It's from
Ameritech. It's not at all flakey, in my experience. I have a static
IP, but that's not normal for ADSL, they're usually dynamic.
SDSL is syncronous. Both directions are the same speed. This is what
Grex needs. They are more expensive. Several ISPs in the area are
getting ready to offer it. The main kicker is distance from the CO.
I'd guess Grex is close enough. You can get up to 1.5 Mb in each
direction (T1 speeds.) You pay for bandwidth, like in a T1. The loop,
however, is much cheaper. I don't know what pricing will be. Ameritech
will not offer them, as far as I know. Since they're aimed at corperate
users, I'd guess you can get a subnet.
|
devnull
|
|
response 21 of 65:
|
May 8 00:11 UTC 1999 |
Re #12: So, I just did an upload to grex using ftp for a response I wanted
to post in the coop conference, but dumping the file in /tmp/togrex. Is
your conf server going to let me do that?
Re #19: I don't know what pricing in Ann Arbor is like, but it looks
like you can get 384K in each direction from a DSL loop for about
$200/month in Boston. (The $200 includes both the local loop, and the
connection between your ISP and the rest of the universe.) You can
get a reasonable size subnet with that (one provider charges an extra
$150/year if you want a 64 host subnet, which works out to $12/month
for the IPs, so figure about $212/month).
I think 384K is about a quarter of a T1; 384K is three times faster
than what grex currently has.
|
scg
|
|
response 22 of 65:
|
May 8 00:15 UTC 1999 |
a 384K synchronous connection is six times the speed of what Grex has now,
assuming an even amount of traffic in both directions. I need to ask the
sales people at work what we're going to be charging for the DSL connections,
since I don't remember.
|
jazz
|
|
response 23 of 65:
|
Jun 26 14:16 UTC 1999 |
GREX is only using a single 64k B channel?
|
janc
|
|
response 24 of 65:
|
Jun 26 15:27 UTC 1999 |
No, we are using two channels for 128K.
|
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 65:
|
Jun 26 17:15 UTC 1999 |
Hmm... New responses in this item remind me that I'm supposed to be
organizing a "Future of Grex" meeting for sometime in the not too
distant future. I dropped the ball on this, probably because the ACLU
suit came up and I gave that most of my Grex-specific attention.
My plan is to poll the Grex board and staff in mail to identify some
dates that would work, then give a choice of dates in this item, from
which we'll collectively arrive at a date for the meeting. Does that
sound reasonable?
|
srw
|
|
response 26 of 65:
|
Aug 1 04:27 UTC 1999 |
John (Remmers),
It does sound reasonable, and I suspect that your are still polling, but
it has been a while since the last response, so I thought I would remind
you to post the tentative dates here, so that the public will have an
ample opportunity to participate in the meeting (whenever it happens).
|
don
|
|
response 27 of 65:
|
Aug 7 01:46 UTC 1999 |
This may be the most redundant thing said so far, but IMO Grex should try to
expand proportionally on increasing availablity for existing users more than
for new ones. A suggestion: Gradually increase Grex's capabilities 50% by:
1) Add another 56k ISDN. This should be cheaper than the xDSL's &c.
2) Increase Grex's general system capability by putting in some new
processors, memory, and some more modems.
3) Set the server to allow 108 remote connections (72*1.5)
4) After this is all set, add in one of the 2-gig drives from inventory
for the new users' home directories.
This would logically make Grex's operating costs 150% of what they are now,
with a (relatively) smaller capital investment. It also provides for a
general template with which to implement future expansion.
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 65:
|
Aug 9 20:45 UTC 1999 |
I think that GREX is not properly positioned to make such a risky step into
expansion. Unless we had much more solid information on the basis of which
to believe that such an expansion would result in a greater than 50% growth
in the member base, it would be like blowing a balloon up to 50% larger than
its standard capacity, just to bounce it around for a minute before it pops.
We'd prefer to be able to bounce GREX around for a long time to come, at it's
present size or a carefully orchestrated growth rate, rather than go boom.
|
srw
|
|
response 29 of 65:
|
Aug 10 03:23 UTC 1999 |
Actually I liked the part of Don Joffe's resp:27 about increasing the
number of users allowed on at once. I think we could add as many as 16
and not get too slow. We spend a lot of time processing mail and other
things not related to user count.
It may or may not produce more members, though. I am looking at this as
a way to take a bite out of the telnet queue, not a financial win.
Adding bandwidth is something I think we can't afford, unless it's
donated to us.
|
srw
|
|
response 30 of 65:
|
Aug 10 03:23 UTC 1999 |
I guess that for now there is still no progress on a get-together to
discuss future plans.
|
mary
|
|
response 31 of 65:
|
Aug 10 09:46 UTC 1999 |
I hope the get-together doesn't happen until Mark can be there,
which I believe is in September. To a great degree our plans
depend on our budget and he knows that better than anyone.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 65:
|
Aug 10 11:21 UTC 1999 |
Didn't see srw's resp:26 when he posted it, since I was away for a week.
Thanks for the reminder; now that I'm home and settled in, I'll get back
to this. Mary's right; it looks like September is the earliest the
meeting can happen. We're trying for a weekend meeting, mostly likely
Sunday. I've polled board & staff about dates that would work, and will
post date info here when I've caught up on responses.
|
janc
|
|
response 33 of 65:
|
Aug 10 16:17 UTC 1999 |
Doing something to shorten the telnet queue is probably a good choice
for a shortish-term goal.
|