Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Windows Update and Network Bandwidth?
Brett Glass asks: "As we reviewed the cache statistics for our small ISP today, we noted that the traffic generated by Microsoft's Windows Update feature constituted 45% -- no, that's not a misprint -- of our total throughput. Because so many computers on the Internet run Windows, this massive resource drain occurs whenever Microsoft announces major security holes (as it did this week). The traffic could be greatly reduced, and service to users much improved, if the updates were cacheable at the ISP. But Microsoft has set up the service in such a way that the data can't be cached. (It's digitally signed, so inserting Trojans into the cache is virtually impossible; in any event, no more of an issue than intercepting the data stream.) Are others out there seeing the same pattern? How might Microsoft be convinced to make its updates cacheable, so as not to waste unthinkable amounts of bandwidth?"
No one's bitching. All the person is asking is whether there's a whether he can change Microsoft's mind. Nowhere does he insult MS. In fact, he states that there is a completely justifiable reason for not letting anyone cache the updates.
Just settle down, really. Maybe you should go to bed.
You can't transparently cache, but you can set up an SUS server and point your clients at it. Software Update Services FAQ. I don't think it costs anything (beyond the cost of a Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2003 Server), and I don't see anywhere that it says you can only use it in a business... Wouldn't that work?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could set up a caching proxy to establish a verification process with the items being cached from that server - that way the server could perform checksum verification on the file and approve the copy for distribution.
It seems that it could be an easy implementation. The proxy requests the file verification in, an XML-RPC request is returned from the server to perform the checksum, the resulting data is sent via SOAP, and approval is given or denied, causing the cache to be used or flushed.
Ahh, but then that would involve Reverse Engineering, which, as we know is now illegal.
Not to mention that this is approaching a P2P network, which as we know can only be used for piracy.
Sorry, we're all just going to have to live with this new "innovation" in bandwidth utilization.
moto411.com
Along with the big other reply the whole point is that just downloading and saving a local copy isn't going to help an ISP with users who want to use the simple Windows Update system. Transparent caching is what everyone wants. Having to direct users to updates, keep those updates up to date, and deal with users complaints/suggestions/whatever about the updates is just too much work to justify when the adoption rate will be very small (IMHO) as users continue to just start Windows Update.
The latest update was the Java fix, and that weighed in at 5MB. If that's all it takes to spike your traffic then you're probably getting off cheap the rest of the time, with most users not doing much downloading other than mail and news.
Why don't you post some hard data instead of percentages? Saying windows update is 50% of your traffic is meaningless unless you provide background. What is your normal traffic? How close are you to capacity?
I've lost count of the times I've run into problems with transparent caches feeding me stale data; the last place I want to see stale data is when fetching security updates.
If you think it wastes too much bandwidth, think about the bandwidth which could be wasted by a network full of machines which were compromised due to not fetching the latest securty updates.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Um, it's actually a free download. You just need the hardware (which doesn't have to be that great for what it's doing. I think mine is running on a P2@333 w/ a 20GB drive for the downloads)
I run it at home for my network (1 Email/Web/DNS, 1 DNS secondary, 2 AD, 1 SQL, 2 XP pro workstations for devel), just so I don't have to abuse my DSL too much. Instead of each machine hitting WU, only the SUS Server does. Each machine gets the update off the SUS server.
I do think that MS should wise up and make an ISP compatable SUS server. I guess they might have issues with maintaining the freshness of the ISPSUS server.
www.christopherlewis.com