Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

256 comments

Get drunk. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424070)

Unplug wires in network closet.

Get high. (4, Funny)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424110)

Plug wires in again in a more colorful way.

Support stem cell research. (-1, Offtopic)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424386)

Get an abortion.

kdawson is pants (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424090)

slow news day? get this shit off /.

Backups (4, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424096)

I learned from the BOFH that the fastest backups are written to /dev/null.

Re:Backups (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425426)

i've seen people use /dev/null as temp space.. as long as you don't lose your handle to the file it is still readable..

Switch to cable internet at work? (1, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424148)

Switching from Ts to Cable Internet service at work would get you fired within a week, since within that amount of time you will see downtime.

Re:Switch to cable internet at work? (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424490)

It depends, we have some sites that have done very well with cable providers on business class accounts (I assume those that have separate channels for business class), and less so with others. Our biggest problem has been the lack of any teeth to an SLA when we did have problems, which is why I would never move our HQ which has nearly half our people and which hosts remote access for the rest. For a remote office where they can always fall back to 3G tethering if they have an outage for a day or two and use our Citrix farm it's a great way to get bandwidth on the cheap.

Re:Switch to cable internet at work? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424688)

That is our issue as well, TWC is a horrible cable provider and no "business class" isp offers a real SLA.

Re:Switch to cable internet at work? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425244)

And yet I had TWC Business for 2 years at my office and it went down only twice for about 3 hours total in that time.

Re:Switch to cable internet at work? (3, Insightful)

VanGarrett (1269030) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425364)

That is almost exactly five 9's of up-time. Sounds like they met the standard guarantee.

Re:Switch to cable internet at work? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425394)

I run IT for a cab company. 250 Cabs. 25 Workstations, 3 Servers and so on. I use TWC Business class for internet with a single T1 and a DSL line. DSL is only for the cameras. I get cheap high speed internet for everyone through the Cable on the rare occasion it has a hiccup we have a T1 line for back up. Internet slows but we keep going.

11. (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424170)

Stop your IT Department from visitting Slashdot

Re:11. (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424260)

  1. Ban Quake during work hours
  2. Ban Microsoft shares
  3. Ban NFS
  4. Put users on Linux and servers on NetBSD
  5. Have all web traffic go through Squid caches
  6. Use gigabit or ten gig ethernet for LANs
  7. Ensure the switches can actually carry all the traffic, not just the traffic from one line
  8. Segment the network according to where the traffic is, not where the politics are

Additional Tip: +1, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424616)

Ban ALL Microsoft products. The worst is WORD.

Yours In Tashkent,
Kilgore T.

Re:11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424832)

Quake? What the fuck, who still plays Quake? That game is 12 years old.

Re:11. (2, Informative)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425076)

And thanks to it not requiring activation and having support for running it's own dedicated servers, people still CAN play it.

Re:11. (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424836)

I'm curious if you're banning microsoft shares AND nfs what do you use for networked file storage?

Re:11. (3, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424960)

Subversion.
 

Re:11. (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424842)

# Ban Microsoft shares
# Ban NFS
# Put users on Linux and servers on NetBSD

If you are banning MS style shares, and also banning NFS, how exactly *do* you want all your users on Linux desktops to access their data on the BSD servers? Might as well just ban all TCP/IP traffic from the network, and note that you now have much more available bandwidth.

Re:11. (1)

Merc248 (1026032) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424890)

There's other network file systems out there... like AFS.

Re:11. (4, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424910)

2.Ban Microsoft shares
3.Ban NFS

If you ban CIFS and NFS, what's left? Sneakernet has great bandwidth, but the latency sucks and it's a bitch to search.

Re:11. (3, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425204)

We use carrier pigeons, they can only take a couple "packets" of 16gb or so, but it only takes a few minutes for them to cross the city. We also use carrier rats internally as they can do the same thing with even higher capacity. We tried to work with carrier snails for a while, not sure why that didn't work out, but the packet never did arrive in San Diego like we expected. Snail mail my ass.

Re:11. (3, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425356)

What's left:

  • Andrew File System
  • Ceph
  • Lustre
  • GlusterFS
  • POHMELFS
  • Parallel Virtual File System
  • CODA

There's probably a few others I've forgotten.

Re:11. (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425418)

Well, those are about as practical as replacing all the Windows boxes at my company, so why not!

Re:11. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425428)

GFS is probably the only one of those I would consider production ready based on the user sessions I've attended at various industry tradeshows.

Don't fight the system, use it. (3, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424942)

Run remote desktops. Bandwidth consumption to the desktop drops dramatically.
Run your heavy network I/O over the switch stacking fabric, where you've got shit loads of bandwidth. Channel bond.
Separate access ports/switches and storage network ports/switches. Use jumbo frames on the storage network, but don't route them.
Prefer shared memory first, then unix domain sockets over TCP/IP/LAN over WAN. Microsecond (or better) latency vs milliseconds or seconds.
Dedicate servers to applications, take advantage of copy on write & modern memory management.
Let your VM management hold a significant proportion of dirty pages. WTF is the point of loads of RAM if you insist on running at disk speed? But do use a logged filesystem.
Use a load management system. Grid Engine, Condor etc.

Re:Don't fight the system, use it. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425104)

Oh yeah I forgot. That'll be $20k consultancy please.

 

Re:Don't fight the system, use it. (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425218)

How do I configure my Airport to do this? They said it was professional quality at the Apple store.

Re:Don't fight the system, use it. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425370)

What, to give him $20k? If you figure it out, can you send me the same?

Ban Microsoft shares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424980)

Do the employees keep checking the value of their stock or why do you want to ban MSFT shares?

Backup to tape? (2, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424218)

Seriously, does anyone backup to tape anymore?

Re:Backup to tape? (2, Informative)

Tinctorius (1529849) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424250)

CERN does.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424262)

I do :(

I hate my tape system with every ounce of my being. But for the time being, I'm stuck with it.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424322)

I do. What do you use that's cheap and 1.6 Terabytes in size? Need 4 new ones every Month.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424390)

Disks. Not only are they way faster than tapes, but they aren't dependent on a tape drive. Picture your backup tapes. Now picture how useless they would be if your tape drive broke (or was destroyed in a disaster). Disks on the other hand can be plunked down into pretty much any machine and accessed.

I haven't priced tapes lately; how much does it cost just for tapes for one backup? Counting the cost of a tape drive (a spare probably wouldn't be a bad idea; see above) and the cost per tape, and suddenly disks don't seem so expensive anymore.

Also as an added bonus: when you retire your disks, if they are still working you can still use them for something useful.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424500)

30 of them does not seem cost effective, also I am not sure I trust disks for long term offsite storage.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424990)

30 of them does not seem cost effective, also I am not sure I trust disks for long term offsite storage.

Doesn't have to be 30 of them, dual layer dvds will hold 8Gigs, I have yet to require more than 2 of them for all my data, period. Granted, that's personal data, your mileage may vary. As for your second point, we're talking classic magnetic tape, right? I dunno...

Re:Backup to tape? (3, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424508)

I have almost 5k tapes offsite on legal hold, how much would that cost in HDD's and storage fees vs tape?

Re:Backup to tape? (3, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424536)

unless they are physically damaged, or get too much voltage applied to them, and fry the boards, etc.

Tape is designed to be a long term, shelf stable investment. How many old MDF hard drives can you access now? You can go to IBM right now, and order tape drives that work with mainframes from the same era. You will pay out the nose, but they are available.

Re:Backup to tape? (4, Insightful)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425022)

You sound like someone who has never been responsible for long term backup storage. Stuff isn't just thrown on a tape and stored offsite for years. Responsible DR requires you to constantly be shifting all your long term storage onto new methods, constantly. You wouldn't have MDF hard drives with valuable data on them, or even legacy data as all that data should have been MOVED and VERIFIED onto current media.

Re:Backup to tape? (4, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424558)

I look at the tapes, and yes, I know how useless they'll be in about 3 years time, we'll have migrated to a new system that isn't compatible with this. I look at the backup tapes from 1999, and how we don't even have a tape drive for them anymore, but should we need to access them we'll probably hunt them down.

What kind of disks are you talking about? Well I need over 1TB of space per backup, at the end of each month, 4 different 1+ TB backups to be stored indefinately. So I can't use floppies, CD/DVD/BRD...

Because Hard Drive Disks go through different mediums too you know, I can't plug my SCSI into a SATA. I am not entirely sure that any hard drive I use today will be accessible 10 years from now. And lets look at the prices for a 2TB hard Drive (since that'd be what I'd need). Let's say I get lucky and get them for $100 each. Tapes I can get for $30.

By using tapes we get the size we need, though the speed is slow, for the right price. Saving almost $3000 a year by using tapes.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424640)

Tape speed isn't slow, LTO4 will do 240MB/s with 2:1 compressible content, your source probably can't keep up with that for most types of backups.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425144)

Hard disks don't go through revisions as quickly as tapes do. And on top of that you're not going to have to worry about whether or not you can read the HDD. Mainly because you'll know. Either the interface is supported in the other machine or it won't. On top of that any disk made in the last 15 or so years can be read with technology that's readily available today. But really you shouldn't have your disks sitting that long because it ends up being cheaper to dump the older ones onto newer larger ones anyways. You can get nearly a thousand of the HDDs I was using on my first personally owned computer on just one of the largest disks commercially available.

It's kind of a strawman argument to suggest that since you can't directly plug them in that there are no adapters available.

Re:Backup to tape? (2, Insightful)

XXeR (447912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424690)

I haven't priced tapes lately

That's too bad. If you did, you'd know why many of us still use tape...especially in times like this where every penny matters.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424698)

How do you backup TB's of data across many drives? Then how do you ensure your disks dont get damaged on the ride to the bank/vault? How do you store hundreds of disks?

If you're a small business that can get away with backing up to a couple external drives then you probably don't need tapes. If you can afford to have ALL of your data replicated to multiple sites and those sites can keep backups/archives running on live disks then you probably don't need tapes.

In my case, today I sent out 9 LTO4 tapes (each holds upto 1.6TB) to the vault. I couldn't manage 9 disks. With tapes I just put them in the tape library and it manages everything itself, moves them around, knows which tape has what data, what can be overwritten, etc. Everyday it gives me a list of tapes to bring back from the vault and it gives me a list of tapes to take to the vault. The courier throws them in his bag and goes on his way. There's nothing delicate that will easily break.

The tapes cost about $40 each. A drive costs probably $1000. My tape library cost like $10,000, it has two drives and holds around 40 tapes.

Re:Backup to tape? (0, Troll)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424784)

A 600GB Super DLT-2 tape cartride costs $119
A 1TB SATA drive costs $60

Re:Backup to tape? (4, Informative)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424924)

An 800GB Native / 1.6TB Compressed LTO-4 tape costs $35. If you don't deliberately choose a ridiculous comparison, tapes really aren't that expensive.

Re:Backup to tape? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424958)

A 600GB Super DLT-2 tape cartride costs $119
A 1TB SATA drive costs $60

LTO tape has been the market leader ever since it came out. Don't bother with any other tape technology.

A 800 GB LTO-4 tape costs $40 (plus you get compression on top of that). And LTO-4 is much faster than SATA.

More importantly, TAPE IS MUCH MORE RELIABLE. LTO-4 error rates are 1 in 10^17. SATA error rates are 1 in 10^14.

What is your data worth? Since you're going through the hassle of backing it up, it's got to be worth something to you...

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425010)

LTO won; DLT is basically dead. LTO4 tapes are 800/1600 and cost $30. LTO5 is still kinda new, so you'll pay $100 for 1.5TB/3TB, but hardware encryption is available. Also, the shelf-life of stored SATA drives is a bit unknown, and they don't have handy plastic cases for transport (a tape in its plastic case is far less fragile than a disk).

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424870)

Drop disk, there goes your backup.

I think the reason most people are still using tape backup systems is that they are required to, they work, and the people that pay the bills trust them. I can say that disk backup is the way to go all I want. The tot box full of dead hard drives says otherwise. Granted thee are desktop and laptop drives not server drives, but the boss does not see that. They just see a box of dead hard drives.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425038)

Disk backup only makes sense if you're shipping bits off-site to backup disks, or as an onsite cache of your real backups. Shipping the disks themselves is a bit silly.

Re:Backup to tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424904)

Well, LTO Ultrium 4 tapes at 800GB/1600GB Native/Compressed run about $50 (16 cents per gigabyte). SATA-300 1TB drives run about $70 (a little over 14 cents per gigabyte). Assuming you have a solution that can get a 2:1 compression ratio outside of the tape drive, the hard drive solution is more cost-effective than tape even BEFORE taking into account the additional costs of cleaning cartridges.

YMMV, but in my 15 years of experience, I have yet to find a fast and reliable tape solution (and have even seen my employer throw good money after bad repeatedly on a specific solution, namely two VXA-2 and then a VXA-320 robotic library, all of which failed to provide reliable backups within a month of installation due to hardware and/or media failures. I have had only a single hard drive that failed out of the box.)

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424440)

Yup, cheap and high capacity.

Besides, they're easy to take offsite in a pocket and if a backup isn't off site then it's just a copy.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424574)

I looked around a bit, and it looks like tapes cost over $100 for 1.5TB of capacity (uncompressed). Throw in $1000 for a tape drive and the whole tape thing isn't looking so hot....

We take disks off site, though I will grant that dropping them probably isn't a great idea. I've used padded Pelican cases for transport before without any problems thus far.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424632)

Tape is made for deep archiving, meaning you probably won't need to read the data anytime soon, but when you do it will be there. It is cheaper and more reliable than disk for this. Therefore, a lot of people still use them.

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424672)

Now archiving I can see, though then the question becomes, is there a working tape drive that can read these tapes?

Re:Backup to tape? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424740)

You can buy tape drives from decades ago, it gets expensive but you will be able to get them.

Re:Backup to tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424754)

Seriously, does anyone backup to tape anymore?

Yes. Backing up to my LTO-4 tape array is MUCH faster than hard disks.

800 gigabyte LTO-4 tapes are about $40, and add compression on top of that.

Re:Backup to tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424884)

Yes.

Were you expecting a different answer?

What about power and heat costs of disk as backup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32425016)

What does it cost to power your disks when you are not using them, Tapes cost zero. Disk farms for backup are a power and heat nightmare.

Re:Backup to tape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32425190)

Seriously, does anyone backup to tape anymore?

Disk to disk, with optional tape for anything older than 3-6 months.

Keeping a tape on a shelf doesn't cost much incrementally if you already have the infrastructure, keeping an array of disks running does. If you don't need it near-line, but do need it, clone it to tape.

Going straight to tape is almost impossible nowadays because tape is too fast: getting 140 MB/s from the client (or even many clients multiplexed) is difficult at LTO-5--and that's native, with no compression. The current roadmap has 270, 315, and 472 MB/s for LTO-6, -7, and -8; again, native with no compression.

Step 1 (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424230)

Don't trust articles that have:

Created 2010-06-01 03:00AM

before the "well thought out" advice.

Re:Step 1 (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424448)

I tend to do my best thinking in the middle of the night.

Re:Step 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424502)

Yes, because some guy or gal was up at 3 in the morning clicking the Publish button. Couldn't have been an automated publishing at all; nope, no siree.

#1 tip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424242)

#1 tip

Pull the ethernet cord that runs to your bastard roommate's computer. You know, the one who is always downloading porn when you are trying to frag noobs. That guy is a prick.

great and useless advices :) (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424266)

Like 'know your apps' means anything in the corporate world, especially when apps are custom built, what are you going to do, replace a custom built app with something else? If it was easy like that then why was it custom built in the first place? Sure, some custom apps can be replaced with out of box stuff, but seriously speaking, most cannot, and then your administrator is in the hands of the geniuses in the management, business, marketing, and software development departments :)

Re:great and useless advices :) (2, Insightful)

xianthax (963773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424380)

i think you misunderstood.

Know your apps means knowing their bottlenecks and how to alleviate them.

Some apps have high sustained disk reads, some writes.

Some have high amounts of random reads, some randoms writes, some both.

Some apps are I/O bound, some memory bound, some CPU bound.

The source of the app has nothing to do with your ability to monitor the operation of the app and determine its infrastructure needs.

Re:great and useless advices :) (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424432)

I understood very well, my point is that in an environment with many various apps, it is going to be extremely difficult to first 'know' them and second to optimize for them. I am remembering a few places I worked at, there is no time for an admin to do even normal everyday activities, like various heat tickets, forget about having time and a lab! to do actual studying of apps and possible optimizations.

Hey, as I said, the advice is wonderful and those who can afford it (like Google I guess) are doing it already.

A better article. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425348)

A better article would be one that identifies HOW to "know your apps" rather than just telling you that you should.

What tools are available. How to use them. What to look for in the most common circumstances.

Re:great and useless advices :) (1)

xianthax (963773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425408)

I think your just saying that your management sucked.

Sounds like they didn't realize that implementing correct monitoring infrastructure, testing infrastructure and using that data to optimize your production infrastructure was a long term cost savings over barreling ahead under the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' ideal.

Sounds like a management failure not that the article didn't provide valuable information.

Outsource everything to Google. (4, Funny)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424296)

Just give Eric Schmidt a call, tell him you have nothing to hide from his company or the government and they will replace all your machines with shiny new Google Chrome OS based "Net tops", put all your data on their servers, give you a brand new direct fibre optic connection to their nearest office and all they want in return is the ability to meticulously sift through your data in order to find the best way to bombard you with text-based ads.

Everything is more shiny with Google.

Re:Outsource everything to Google. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424338)

all they want in return is the ability to meticulously sift through your data in order to find the best way to bombard you with text-based ads.
 

And to insert their ads on your printed reports.

Re:Outsource everything to Google. (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425436)

I was about to laugh before I realized that I don't doubt they'll do that in the not-so-distant future. Beware if your expense spreadsheet has an ad for bankruptcy lawyers...

Re:Outsource everything to Google. (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424364)

Everything is more shiny with Google.

Screw mirror finish, i want my car to have a Google finish and blind everyone with the reflection!

Re:Outsource everything to Google. (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424552)

As long as its not flash based web banners.

2Base-TL (4, Insightful)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424298)

What reason is there to run T1/T3 anymore? I know, by definition, the regulation over T1/T3 guarantees reliability. I have dumped T1's and switch to 2Base-TL (aka Metro Ethernet) and it is extremely reliable. For me, the "more reliable" argument doesn't hold much. The latency is very, very good -- often below 10ms. Even if the network goes down, I can afford some sort of backup link. I'm paying under $1,000/month for 10mbit (symmetrical). The footprint for 2Base-TL is pretty good because it is based on DSL technology. It doesn't have the reach that T1's have, but it isn't bad. The big difference is that is spreads the signal over multiple pairs of wire (in my case, 8 pairs) instead of a single pair.

If your company has T1's, shed yourself of the "regulated" links and check out 2Base-TL. You will be glad you did.

Re:2Base-TL (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424430)

Agreed, Metro-E is pretty fantastic for small to mid-sized businesses.

T1s, t3s and up are pretty much archaic anymore in urban areas. Sure, small companies can get by with a t1 or two, but why bother?

Metro-E is typically just as cheap if not cheaper for more bandwidth/better throughput.

Re:2Base-TL (4, Interesting)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424476)

For our US offices all we can get with a decent SLA is Factors of T1, we get Fiber/Ethernet service in Canada 10x faster for the same cost and SLA.

Re:2Base-TL (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424528)

What kind of SLA do you get on that?

Uptime is more important than speed to some folks.

Re:2Base-TL (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424576)

We pay $3k for 20Mbit commit 45Mbit burstable on a DS3, I'll take that and a SLA with teeth over your metro ethernet solution considering the annual difference in cost would be wiped out in ~30 minutes of lost productivity.

Re:2Base-TL (1)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424648)

We run T1's everywhere, sometimes two in a bundle. It sucks but it's available almost anywhere, unlike metro ethernet.

According to AT&T [att.com]

This service is currently available in the following states:

  • Alabama
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • North Carolina
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee

Re:2Base-TL (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424662)

Thats handy, if all your offices are in one town. If you have offices all over the country, its difficult to deal with multiple providers, and SLA's, and creating VPN links between them. (and the fun of monitoring all that!)

Also, with T1's, if you have a bunch going out to different offices, you can have the provider MUX them together, so your core location has one DS3 coming in, carrying all your T1's on it, instead of dozens of CSU/DSU devices plugged into routers.

Re:2Base-TL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424692)

In my home town 100Mbit upload speed/100Mbit download speed is worth under $20/month and the reliability is 99.999%. I might as well die laughing... I'm from Eastern Europe...

Re:2Base-TL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424864)

We pay about that much, except it's for fiber (AT&T Opt-E-Man). 10mbit as well, and very very scalable. It did take about 4 months to get installed though.

Citrix/VDI/etc (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424326)

Get rid of fat clients, that will do wonders to reduce your network bandwidth needs out to the customer. Then beef up the datacenter network.

Re:Citrix/VDI/etc (2, Interesting)

xianthax (963773) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424426)

This is probably the first time I've seen the claim that thin clients _reduce_ network traffic.

Care to elaborate?

Re:Citrix/VDI/etc (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424694)

VS having everyone drag files and email all over the WAN? Yeah it will significantly reduce your network traffic.

Re:Citrix/VDI/etc (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425012)

The last place i was at was where we did this on a large scale we were running oracle apps at the client. Moving to thin client reduced our network use a ton. ( and saved us from having to update our workstations.. why client/server apps need higher end workstations i still beyond me and sort of defeats the purpose. )

Sure if all your users do is browse pretty pictures on the internet it might not help much, but sticking to regular productivity apps will.

VDI should help in either case, working on a POC now.

Back to 56k (3, Funny)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424328)

Slow down your internet connection to a single 56k line... then people will stop trying to use it to look for porn and all the useless crap searches they do on google... You'll also save some money with the monthly bills!

monitoring tools (4, Interesting)

WarJolt (990309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424342)

once I told a coworker about emule. He downloaded and installed it. The next morning the CFO comes to me.... "Have you ever heard about emule"...the infastructure was screwed up, but instead of fix it they waited for p2p to bring the network to it's knees. The best way to test a network is to see how many simultaneous p2p connections it can handle before crapping out. Needless to say there were some consequenced for that employee.

Re:monitoring tools (2, Insightful)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424504)

No the best way is to see if p2p is already blocked.. Tossing bandwidth at the problem is not always the best solution.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32424418)

Doesn't really help me improve my network performance at home.

Re:Meh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424548)

#1 way to do that would be buy real network gear.

Mostly Worthless (3, Insightful)

Rantastic (583764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424478)

It frightens me to think that there are people getting paid to take care of enterprise systems that would not already know everything in this article. Mostly, it reads like a thinly veiled ad for VMWare products.

How about Jumbo frames (1)

E-Lad (1262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424578)

The article suggests things that people worth their IT salt should have already implemented, or at least investigated. Really baseline stuff there.

However one big oversight I see a lot w.r.t. backups and local networks which toss large amounts of data around are configuring jumbo frames. This is often forgotten about when throughput is getting tight.

#1 - separate leisure activity (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424790)

run ntop off a span port or tap. You'll see the majority of your network traffic is from users idling away on things not quite work related. Separate egres traffic on port 80 and 443 with linux htb, tcng or equivalent profiling. Saves you bandwidth that exchange will immediately suck up.

For web servers (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424874)

Write your HTML in notepad, just like the linked article :)

Seriously, I was almost shocked to see such a barebones site. Its been that long.

Re:For web servers (2, Interesting)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32424926)

Really? You've never heard of "print (pre)view"?

There is a reason for leased lines... (4, Insightful)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#32425078)

... and if you think it is about latency you are mildly retarded, as are the writers of this general knowledge article.

Leased lines in general have better SLAs but that isn't even much of a point anymore as they cheaper products "claim" to have similar ones. The difference here is how good is that business class dsl/fiber support at 2am? What are the odds they are actually going to be willing to send someone out to the telco closet right away if there is an issue? You buy leased lines because you need *real* support of the SLAs... not this, "well we were down for 5 hours, so how about we credit you a day off!" bullshit.

It's really scary for what passes for "good advice" these days.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...