How Qwest Runs Things

Brew Bird writes "Qwest explains how they handle the various issues that crop up being a large ISP/Backbone Provider. They've got the presentations setup in a nice little website." It's very *BSD focused, since I believe that's mostly what Qwest runs but the presentations are interesting in the scaling issue - what do you do with that much data and that many machines?

Comments

first-hand info

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who would know, I can tell you that all of the Quest authentication/authorization/accounting software runs on Sun/Solaris boxes, and not FreeBSD.

They may run FreeBSD for some stuff, but you aren't going to scale for extremely high transaction rates on Intel/FreeBSD boxes.

No knock on FreeBSD (I run it myself), but just the way it is.

Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX

[dieman]

With TUX and 2.4.0, you cant beat linux right now in static pages. What I would like to see is 2.2.18 NFSv3 mounted homedirs serving from apache vs. BSD.

Re:Internal vs. External Use

[warpeightbot]

Qwest's "connect on demand" service is PPP Over Ethernet, for which there are a number of BSD and Linux clients. It's a dirty, evil, nassssty hack, wastes bandwidth, and is generally doubleplusungood for us BSD and Linux hackers, but if you're stuck with it, it can be made to work.

Of course, if you're stuck with an actively non-Windows-hostile ISP like Roadrunner or Ma Belle (that's Bellsouth for the non-Southern among us), I feel sorry for you... and wish you the best of luck finding a new ISP.

warp eight bot
geek by nature
Free Software by choice
distro bigotry is for losers

Re:Qwest my be *BSD, but they still mess up royal.

[SEWilco]

The installation problems are due to Qwest.Com, the telephone company. The discussion here is about Qwest.Net the ISP.

Re:Float your boat

[Lazaru5]

The majority of FreeBSD's Security Advisories for 2000 were for third party applications in the Ports Collection, and not part of FreeBSD at all.
Any one running those applications on any OS would have the same problem. The FreeBSD Project is just being responsible.

The advisories have a paragraph that makes this very clear.

Please stop your FUD.

--

ISP division of Qwest (Re:second-hand info)

[Lazaru5]

The information in these presentations is specifically for the Qwest's ISP business, which was U.S. West before they were bought. They are 100% FreeBSD.

Your second-hand info regarding Solaris/Oracle may well be true for the rest of Qwest.


--

Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX

[Lazaru5]

It's not a myth if Linux is only now catching up.

And good for Linux! It _is_ possible to speak well of one OS without speaking poorly of another.

--

Re:Spam

[catfood]

I find it strange that among a couple hundred comments only one AC mentions Qwest's well-established reputation as a spamhaus.

They host spammers and spamvertized websites. They won't remove their spammers no matter how much you complain.

Usenet Porn Primer!

[alannon]

Wow! They even give you a Usenet porn primer in their presentation on Law Enforcement on the internet! Their slides show various newsgroups including: alt.sex.masterbation.pictures.female.teen and alt.sex.bondage! http://www.users.qwest.net/~lawenforcement/LawEnfo rce1.pdf pages 18-21

Re:Spam

[Tackhead]

Goddamn right.

Until Qwest disconnects Alan Ralsky and his spam front Telodigm) (you know, those spams you've been getting from spewspew.net dialups pumping www.gatheredsales.net, www.linkusnow.net and now www.speedquality.org), I don't have any fucking interest in how Qwest runs things.

Because the evidence about how Qwest runs things is in my inbox every goddamn morning.

Fuck Qwest.

And for those reading in nanae, until MAPS gets off its ass and RBLs the whole goddamn 216.144.192.0-216.144.223.255 Qwest/Telodigm netspace, hey, fuck MAPS too.

Re:second-hand info

[bugg]

Huh?

The changes between 4.1 and 4.2 were hardly affected by BSDi. It was the same 'ol, same 'ol- bugfixes, a couple new features, and general improvements.

You won't see much from the BSD/OS code that was released to FreeBSD developers until, maybe 5.0. SMPng is BSD/OS "inspired" but their design does vary significantly from BSD/OS's.

Re:Why just one BSD?

[AntiBasic]

How come when ever someon states something about the BSD's ... its almost always about FreeBSD ...

Because it's the most used.

Yes I know that FreeBSD is great and all, but is it the only one being used for server usage?

Read above. OpenBSD is very reliable, stable, does just about everything FreeBSD does, and more secure than just about anything out there. But the question remains, why just FreeBSD?

More applications, has SMP, and a better VM system for starters.

WHen was the last time you heard some one speak of NetBSD or BSD/OS ...? .. exactly ....

Earlier today. Just because you don't see them on your computer at home doesn't mean its not out there. So I guess Tru64 or AIX are non-existant to you. But does it really matter which BSD is used? So please quit whining.

Re:*BSD too slow -- SPECweb reveals all

[AntiBasic]

Please note, that *BSD isn't even in the running. It isn't even there.

Neither is Solaris or Tru64. So whats your point troll?

Re:second-hand info

[AntiBasic]

My boss used to work in IT at several of Qwest's East Coast shops, and according to him the vast majority of Qwest's business backend runs the standard 'Solaris/Oracle on Sun' setup.

Most operations are a Solaris/Oracle core. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD for its kr4d pure serving ability but for the number crunching they run Solaris.

Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.

The 4.1 -> 4.2 releases were just routine bugfixes, minor tweaks, etc. The average user won't reap any benefits of the merger until SMPng is completed. Ahhh threading!

Nothing of any magnitude in your comments. We all know x86 hardware is nasty, etc.

Internal vs. External Use

[Arker]

Excellent timing on the article, as I am getting ready to switch ISPs and was considering these guys. While it's great to know they use a real OS internally, that doesn't necessarily mean they are friendly to customers doing the same (Roadrunner certainly is not, for instance, proclaiming that using Linux is grounds for terminating a customer account according to one would-be customer of theirs I spoke with recently.)

Anyone have any experience using their service with *nix? I know that it's pretty easy to simply do it on your own, without letting the provider know, but I also really don't like doing that, I don't like supporting a provider that even tries to require their customers pay the MS tax.

I've read through their online information and seen nothing sinister, but I'm very interested in hearing from anyone that's using them now, or that was using them recently.

Re:Internal vs. External Use

[SquadBoy]

Like most ISPs it most likely depends on finding someone in the tech support dept that runs Linux for themselves. You might look at someone a bit smaller and find out if they have any techs who run it for themselves. That was how we supported it when I worked support for a ISP. You are right though that the ISP should not care what you run.

Re:Internal vs. External Use

[carlcory]

I have used Qwest DSL for almost a year now, and highly recommend it.

The key here is to purchase their always-on product (they have an oversubscribed port product which requires you to 'log in' to the service, get timed out, etc.)

I have the 640k service and have dedicated static LAN IP address. Make sure that your service comes with the Cisco 675 router and isn't the internal card (which requires windoze drivers).

But as long as you have the Cisco LAN version, you've got an ethernet gateway, which does DHCP. As long as your service has static IPs and is always-on, you'll be set. I don't know but would fear that having 'connect on demand' service will require windows software.

-cc

Re:second-hand info

[crucini]

One thing that many inexperienced Slashdotter's don't seem to know is that while BSD and GNU/Linux are great (even superior, in many cases) for small-medium Intel boxes, there is a point where you really do need the high-end hardware and industrial-strength UNIX that only IBM, Sun, HP, and others currently provide.

I currently work in an environment where most things run on commercial Unix, so here's my perspective on that. First, there are many applications which are sim ply too demanding for the hardware on which Linux will run. Typically this mean s huge Oracle databases. But there are also many instances of people architecting around the 'big iron' just because it's available, rather than seriously asking what the best platform would be. The best example is web servers, which in my opinion should be Linux/FreeBSD on Intel. That combination yields the best bang for the buck. It's much better to load balance a bunch of Intel web servers than to try to build a huge 'high-availability' Sun or HP web server.

Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source

[The_Messenger]

You don't get the source code. You can buy it from them if you have enough dollars. But you can't redistribute it after you buy it.

Congratulations; you now understand how things work in the real world.

BSDI is almost as bad as Microsoft with its software license.

How is that "bad?" Closed-source is the rule in business, not the exception. And personally, I like it that way. (Gasps of shock from the audience!) Open-source has not yet proven itself to be a viable alternative for business. This the point where people always point to Red Hat... and I say, ha! CheapBytes has probably made more money than Red Hat has from their own software. Now the argument is, "well making money isn't everything!" Well, as the cat said to the kittens who complained of cold milk, tough titty. Making money is what business is all about. It's what fuels capitalism and makes the world go 'round. I'm not saying the Free Software is a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's silly to believe that it will ever become a common business practice.

IBM "supports" Linux, but you have to look deeper. They do release code, but since there's $0.00 ROI, it's just charity. The only place that Linux has in business is as a low-cost (ie free) system for running cheap IA hardware. Just look at Cobalt... they pay $0 for the software that runs their Qube, and since they're not a software company, they don't have to give anything back.

As a programmer and software developer, I have absolutely no problem with closed-source. I want to continue working making software (and making pretty good money), and Open Source has no place in that plan. Free Software will always remain free as in beer, because no businessman will pay for what he can get for free. (Or for less. Once again, CheapBytes profits more than anyone from OSS.) The GNU Manifesto gets really fuzzy in this area, alluding to the "programmer" occupation changing into a more janitorial role, making a living by installing and maintaining the software they write for free. Bullshit. I hope I never have to be a professional developer in that world.

And Raymond's propaganda is really, um, interesting. It would be a lot more effective if he weren't a rapid, flute-playing gun nut who lives on his VA and Red Hat stock options.

It's exactly Free Software/OSS zealot's aversion to making money from software that makes me suspicious of their socialist tendencies. UNIX would not exist without capitalism. Linux, the communist alternative which stole its entire arhcitecture from UNIX, hasn't yet proven itself to be any better.

All generalizations are false.

second-hand info

[The_Messenger]

My boss used to work in IT at several of Qwest's East Coast shops, and according to him the vast majority of Qwest's business backend runs the standard 'Solaris/Oracle on Sun' setup. Any BSD that Qwest uses is likely confined to the actual routers and switches,not only because BSD doesn't run on the type of hardware needed for their amount of traffic, but BSD doesn't even the right software.

Also, I used to be a BSD nut, so while I think it's cool to hear about its use at such large corporations, understand that 80% or more of it will be BSDi. In several areas FreeBSD technically out-performs BSDi's server products, but BSD has both a corporate reputation and a full-time, in-house support staff. Stories about BSD's success in the enterprise are not "news" and should not be considered good for Free Software.

Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.

One thing that many inexperienced Slashdotter's don't seem to know is that while BSD and GNU/Linux are great (even superior, in many cases) for small-medium Intel boxes, there is a point where you really do need the high-end hardware and industrial-strength UNIX that only IBM, Sun, HP, and others currently provide. And it's not just a matter of corporate bullshit... for instance, ask anyone who has ported "real" enterprise software from UNIX to GNU/Linux about the experience and I guarantee that the first they'll do is start bitching about GNU/Linux's lack of a real threading model and other deficiences.

I hope that IBM's support of Linux continues, because that is truly one company whose knowledge and experience can help Linux overcome these issues.

This is getting way offtopic, but I'm going to mention that I think a Linux kernel fork is inevitable within the next five years. One group, led by De Icazza and others, will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of the Windows desktop. The other group, led by IBM, TurboLinux and other corporate interests will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of UNIX as an enterprise OS running on non-trivial (ie non-IA) hardware.

And ten years from now, after the Linux communities have destroyed each other, BSD will still be running network hardware in machine rooms around the world. :-)

All generalizations are false.

A nice change...

[dvk]

from the good old stupid PowerPoint slides taht most companies use for presentations.

-DVK (FP? who cares!)

Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source

[Ig0r]

Capitalism is the be-all and end-all of economic systems and communism means that you're stupid.
Anything that is derived from capitalism is good, even if it's not.
Anything that is derived from communism is bad, even if it's not.
Working for freedom is zealotry.
Doing whatever it takes for money is not.

--

Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX

[lpontiac]

Did you know that Linux 2.4's memory management is based on FreeBSD's?

Re:Why just one BSD?

[jonfromspace]

"a person with a long-standing reputation as being immature and not very personable"/i> Wait a min. I know Theo, and this is bullshit. While Theo is very quiet, and can be a wee bit closed minded, he is a great guy. He takes his project VERY seriously, and as a result is VERY protective of the "end product". as far as security... I think you should do some rading... and not just comic books either.

Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source

[fmaxwell]

Hurrah! Finally another software engineer with enough economic sense to recognize that he'll need a new profession if all software becomes free! I have no desire to become an installation support phone operator and I think that the Linux model is quickly pushing people in that direction.

Having a closed source model is not inherently bad. In most cases, it is the only way to get the talent you need to create a truly top-quality product. While there are some brilliant people in the Linux community, there are a lot of programmer wannabes who have contributed unreliable, poorly engineered software that seems to become part of every distribution.

Another bogus argument that I hear is that there is a great value to having the source code to the products that your company relies on. One word: bullshit! Companies do not stay profitable by screwing around with open-source software packages. A company is a lot better off having a closed-source software product with vendor support.

Thank you for calling Acme Plumbing Supply. We are sorry, but there is no one to take your call right now because they are all modifying GNUventory, our inventory control software. Please leave you number at the sound of the beep and someone will get back to you -- after the next build.

Absurd.

Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source

[fmaxwell]

Tech workers are the first to preach advancements despite anything, but all of a sudden when it's their precious programming jobs that might be threatened, the tune changes!

I don't charge my clients for software development and then wave the free software flag around Slashdot. Many free software advocates are happy to earn a very comfortable living writing software, but they don't want to pay for the software that they rely on. Hypocrites.

Then there is the huge community of freeloaders, many of whom don't even program (is this you?). This is, by far, the largest and most vocal group within the free software movement. They don't write device drivers, applications, kernels, or anything. They just want to download the work of others and not pay for it. Why don't you tell your plumber, accountant, electrician, or mechanic that you want them to work for free?

Since when is free software an 'advancement'? It's not like it has some inherent technical advantage over commercial software. Linux is not capable of some revolutionary thing that can't be done with Solaris, QNX, or even Windows 2000. Comparing open-source software to alternative fuels and factory automation is idiotic. Open source software is not going to save the environment. It won't result in drastic increases in productivity. It's not some great stride forward. In the late '70s, the vast majority of personal computer software was open source and free. It was developed by hobbyists. Then an entire industry grew up that employed millions of people in high-paying jobs. Why should those tech workers push for something that may put them out of work just so that leeches like you can get your software for free?

Why FreeBSD?

[Blind_Loser]

Is there any reason in particular that they use FreeBSD over say OpenBSD or NetBSD?

Dont get me wrong, I like FreeBSD, but I like OpenBSD too.

Float your boat

[deran9ed]

So whats the big deal with this? Yahoo and Hotmail has a FreeBSD farm and my company uses FreeBSD to accomodate 60million users without flaws. I read a post below with someone bitching about the use of Linux and how it compares to the BSD's.

Linux still has ways to go and its surprising to see the great efforts of Slashdot running Linux based machines but personally I wouldn't use it for super high end stuff with a volumnious amount of users since it has its pitfalls.

Now to that same poster both FreeBSD and Linux suck when it comes to security as FreeBSD almost rivaled Microsoft in security advisories last year, and although OpenBSD is my OS of choice it does not have the support in hardware for most mega corporations' needs.

Solaris is a different story altogether which no one mentions good old Sol here. Although it is a bit bloated with uneccessary binaries there is no comparison for any Linux or BSD based server running Oracle versus a Solaris machine running Oracle its like comparing apples and oranges.

Why the posting of a FreeBSD based article when all this time I thought Slashdot had reformed itself to a Microsoft/Linux/Stupid Scientifical story based site with semi-weekly postings of stupid movies and stupid anime, not to be overshadowed by an assinine arsenal of other stupid articles the world just won't need.

Home Sweet Home ya bastards