[aclug-L] Re: colocation options

[Carl D Cravens <raven@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Lars von dem Ast wrote:

> As far as "30 servers...and none reachable," the fact that they're not
> "reachable" is exactly because of the anti-p2p turn the Internet has
> taken since the Web took off.

I don't think I can agree with this.  Would all of those "peers" really be
concerned about their uptime?  You've got one Sun workstation that hosts
your XYZ driver... the NIC's been flakey and it locks up every three or
four weeks.  You haven't had time to replace it (you've got a day job that
_doesn't_ involve maintaining your Sun box) and hoped that it was just a
temporary glitch.  So now you're going to take it down to install a new
NIC... just a half-hour or so.  You take it down on a Saturday afternoon,
because that's most convenient for you.  But something goes wrong and the
darn thing won't recognize the new NIC.  You're down for four hours while
you trouble-shoot the thing.

You call that reliable?  That's peer-to-peer, when all the peers don't
have a solid interest in 24x7x365 reliability.  And you don't get that
kind of interest unless somebody is paying for it.

> So, why aren't they "reachable?" I'd say the commercial side of the
> Internet has been playing "bandwidth keep-away" for fun and profit.
> Damned obvious.

Bandwidth costs money, somebody's got to pay for it, and it's constantly a
balance between having enough and paying for more than you really need.

> In a more progressive world, the public sector would provide bandwidth,
> the same way they provide roads.

Oh, that'd be good... you've obviously never driven on some particular
Western stretches of US Interstate highway.  That wouldn't make for a
reliable network.

--
Carl D Cravens (raven@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Why get even, when you can get odd?

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi