Slashdot Mirror
A Look Inside the BBC's Network
the-dark-kangaroo writes "The BBC have provided the entire internet with a look inside their amazing network. It shows everyone the almighty web power they are with over 40 webservers and 12 firewalls and their 8Gbps intersite connections. All this seems to running some form of *NIX with perl underlying their powerful website delivery. Take a look at those load graphs!"
Well, according to the ever reliable Netcraft:
Solaris 8 Apache/1.3.26 (Unix)
SunOS 4 Apache/1.2.1
SunOS 4 unknown
SunOS 4 Apache/1.2.1
SunOS 4 unknown
SunOS 4 Apache/1.2.1
SunOS 4 Apache/1.2.1
SunOS 4 unknown
SunOS 4 Apache/1.2.1
SunOS 4 unknown
Now if I get the urge to hack into the BBC network, I won't have to do as much poking and prodding to get my own network map. They've done the time-consuming work for me!
I'm a big tall mofo.
... how well can all this great technology stand up to a good old-fashioned slashdotting?
As anyone who listened to the now defunct Vorbis streams of BBC radio, this has been here for many years. Nevertheless, it's still impressive.
It shows everyone the almighty web power they are with over 40 webservers and 12 firewalls
Well, it's rather a lot, but "almighty?" What ever happened to British undertatement?
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Geez, having an awful time getting access to the graphs and all that fun data. So much for that 8gbps then huh?
As a network engineer for a large web hosting company, having worked for very large ISP's, etc all I can say is that I'm impressed. The 4 OC-12's alone coming out of NY sold me. =)
Curious that the map showing the geographical distribution of the network centres shows only the USA and Europe. Is this because the bulk of the audience is there?
Has anyone dug through the data and found country usage statistics?, now that I would find interesting.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Nah, they're already slashdotted. Watch those load graphs.. as they rise like they've never risen before!
Man holding teacup: "Nigel, what's that sudden whirring noise?"
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
This is not considered incorrect. "BBC" can be considered a collective noun, and as a Brit, I can say with some certainty that we would use the third person plural pronoun - i.e. "they" to refer to that company without naming it.
:P
In fact, this is commonplace for any company/body corporate/corporation...any group, surely? Consider: Microsoft are evil. They are bastards.
iqu
That's perfectly acceptable British English. I mean, seriously. If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, at least put a little effort into it.
Another one bites the dust
I seem to recall that a link to that page was present in each highly-modded comment in each story regarding "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy part 3 on BBC radio 4" we had back in... September 2004?
So, old news!
Indeed, how is this "news" at all?
(I may need to "get out more" - whatever that phrase means.)
Step 1: Build webfarm
Step 2: Tout its mightyness on Slashdot
Step 3: Review logs after free stress test
Step 4: Fix issues
Step 5: See Step 1
IT is Dead. The industry is Shot Join Others Who Feel Your Pain http://www.internalstrife.com/
It's been Slashdotted before the first 10 replies!
Yeah, BBC, you *did* have excellent servers and bandwidth...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Doing a search of their site reveals no occurance of "Perl".
Seastead this.
its slashdotting like a man.
I got the page load in ~8 seconds when comment counter said 30...thats about when most sites have smoke coming out of the servers.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Google cache:
: su pport.bbc.co.uk/support/+site:support.bbc.co.uk+in url:support&hl=en
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:KiH513c0cEcJ
...of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to serve the internet is insignificant compared to the power of a slashdotting.
quoth the story: "take a look at those load graphs!"
i love it when slashdot predicts a slashdotting...
ed
All those moaning it's slashdotted must be missing the fact that the rest of the BBC pages are still loading pretty damned fast. Browsing BBC News isn't a problem for me. Try a bit harder if you want to Slashdot the BBC.
The overview diagram points to a directory, so it can be virtually hosted anywhere, further distributing the load.
Maybe they'd be kind enough to measure the /. effect and post a separate graph showing traffic with referrals from slashdot? Now that would be neato...
Cheers, guys! Steady on!
You have to feel sorry for Declan. The duty team roster has him doing a 24 hour shift today.
--
Linux VPS Hosting with 24x7 support, so we know how he feels.
But they're not government controlled. Their Royal Charter provides them autonomy. They are obligated to be politically neutral wherever possible - just look at the criticism of all three major UK political parties they carry on their news pages.
Any true Briton with a knowledge of history would know that the British Broadcasting Company, founded in 1922, became the Corporation at the start of 1927.
Nope, the BBC is funded entirely through the license fee, which you have to pay if you own a TV. The government allows it to demand this, and it is effectively a tax, but that's not to be confused with 'tax money'
Nor is it controlled by a government board. The day to day running is controlled by the Director general. The overall direction is controlled by the government (who do have to be approved by the government, but that doesn't mean that they are part of the government), only above that is the culture secretary, who doesn't really get much say either way. The only other contact that the government has with it is the Royal charter whic has to be renewed every 10 years by act of parliament. It's not a good idea for the BBC to annoy the government, but the government doesn't actually control them at any direct level.
FGD 135
The network infrastructure throughout the BBC, certainly in News, is so microsoft centric it's unheard of. The network has recently been sold, along with the staff, to Siemens. It's based around Active Directory, all file servers are Windows, all DNS and DHCP is maintined by windows, with only a smattering of *nix boxes (DHCP at one london office, unix for parts of the BBC-Wide Imaging system "elvis" and "Jupiter"). The desktop is 2K/XP, and so locked down we cant even run the BBC News Ticker on it! (For what it's worth, everyone in my office ignores such policies as we need things like Putty and VNC to work)
...it's possible to use tax funding to do some really intensely cool stuff. The BBC has a much better grasp of production (technical as well as aesthetic) in all forms of media than any of the pay services here in the U.S. Too bad we have the sadly underfunded NPR and PBS here. It could be so much better. NPR needs a lot more dramatic and comedy programming. PBS needs more popular entertainment that they haven't snagged from the BBC. But without the funding, we're stuck with the crap on HBO and Showtime. There is a definite lack of quality in US production. The same goes for HBO and Showtime's web presence. They have nothing on the BBC.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Over 40 high performance webservers : $
12 firewalls : $$
8Gbps network to connect them : $$$
Not able to handle the Slashdot effect : Priceless.
Nevertheless, the BBC is independant of the government and posts whatever news it wants to. It frequently posts bad things about the government without fear of being shut down.
The BBC has a charter to say what it can and can't do, the government doesn't get a say in how it is run outside of that charter. The charter is reviewed every few years, see http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/
Steve.
A latent existence
'It is always accurate to call a forced payment to the government a "tax".'
Which is why the licence is payed to the BBC and not the government.
(The BBC has it's own tax raising powers, similar to the taxes raised by trading companies in our colonies under previous Monarchs)
It is not part of the Government at all, it is run by a board of governors who ensure standards are maintained.
It is not accountable to the Government, instead it answers to the public and increasingly the British telecoms regulator OFCOM.
The governemt have no input on the editorial of the organisation.
"John, could you put down your tea and come here for a moment."
"Yes?"
"It seems our load monitoring application is overloaded. I can't monitor the system."
"Hmm, try tapping on the dials."
"Uhm, there aren't dials John. This is a computer program."
"Don't you mean, 'programme'?"
"Yes, sorry. So, what do I do now?"
"Let me check the manual... let's see.. squirrels chewing through fibre-optic.. alien invasian.. tea shortage.. politcal unrest.. ahh, here we go, inaccessible monitoring.. it says simply, 'Panic'."
"Panic? What does that mean?"
"I think it means we should run about the room screaming or some such."
"Like this? WOOWOWOWOWO"
"No, that's more celebration. Try more anguish, like this: Aahhhhhhhhhrg!!!"
"Ahhwoooooooo!"
"No, try and keep from letting your mouth go round like that. Here, watch me: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahrg!"
"Aaaaaaaaaaaahrg??"
"That's good. Aaaaaaaahrg!!! And flail your arms about like this: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahrg!!!"
"I think I've got it! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahrg!"
1. Karma Whore
2. Goto step 1.
In the charter if the BBC wants to provide services outside the UK they must be self-funding. If you want to see BBCAmerica you need to pay. I'm not sure whether the video news feeds work outside the UK or not.
Because Sky (That's FOX to you American lot) is a pile of crap and has no poltitcal integrity whatsoever, unlike an accountable public service such as the Beeb. Also it's a complete rip off, the BBC is far cheaper. Just take a look at the costs of Sky subscription and you have to put up with ads as well, despite already paying through the nose. Oh but wait, the BBC is state funded so it must be evil.
In what way is the Beeb providing a public service (as it should according to its original mandate) by offering Net based information that a private agency, be it Sky, Reuters or some blogger could just as easily offer?
Any public serivce could theoretically be provided by a private contractor instead, you idiot. This in itself is not an argument against providing a particular public service.
All this equipment may be very pretty to look at, but where is the value for money and why should I be made to subsidize the costs incurred in providing BBC information to those users who are accessing it from outside of the UK?
It would probably cost more money to restrict access to within the UK in some cases. I presume the general reason for the BBC providing services to outside the UK is good will. You know, the same reason we give aid to foreign countries, or hold receptions for foreign dignataries, etc.
Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
Technically, this network is now owned and managed by Siemens Business Services. BBC Technology, which grew out of a few different parts of the BBC Engineers and IT depts, was sold to Siemens in October last year, to form part of Siemens Business Services, specifically the 'Media' part. SBS run the network both internally and out, as a managed service. This creates some interesting issues with network boundaries, and "who owns what", but it keeps us on our toes!
Of couse, most of the same staff are there, so little has changed on that front. The lads and ladies in Maidenhead do a very good job of running a VERY complicated network. The BBC is the top content (not search) site in the UK, if not the world (don't quote me on that). The internal network is also pretty damn reliable, with a dual fibre ring running round most of the London buildings.
Oh shock horror, the BBC managed to not make a natual disaster all about the Americans.
Tell me, did FOX news even bother reporting the Tsunami at all, or did they just mention some high wind in Califoria.
I think it's unfair that you've been labelled a troll, because the poster you were replying to mis-typed. The BBC is controlled by a Board of Governors. They are proposed by Government ministers, but they are appointed by the Queen (but you should understand that she has zero choice in the matter). In general, the BBC tends to be somewhat anti-government, or at least somewhat sceptical about what the government is doing. Generally speaking, whichever political party is in power accuses the BBC of being biased against it. It's probably fair to say that the BBC is somewhat anti-establishment, even though it is a bastion of the establishment. It's pretty hard to describe the situation actually, but no sane person would call the BBC the mouthpiece of the Government.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
' NPR is not "official US government news" by any stretch.'
NPR is propped up and funded by tax money. The same is true of PBS.
PBS receives most of its funding from (80% ) from private donations (sponsors and members); some government funding does come in via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the form of grants, but not much of it.
NPR gets most of its funding from licensing fees paid by member stations. Even these memberships stations average maybe 15% government funding, at most.
For an interesting contrast, Raytheon gets something on the order of 80% of its funding from government or "defense" sources; since all "defense" money ultimately comes from the US government (even foreign defense revenue must be approved by the US government, and I can almost guarantee you that the foreign defense revenue does not come to more than a fraction of the US defense revenue), I think we can characterize all 80% or so (I'm rounding the number to account for leaner and fatter years) as "government funding." So I guess that we can say, by your logic, that Raytheon is part of the government.
So, to summarize, PBS and NPR are independent non-profit organizations that receive some federal grant money: nowhere near as much as most of their detractors seem to think.
I must have seen different BBC news coverage to the guys at The Telegraph, because mine had American helicoptors landing at Red Cross camps to deliver aid. Can't let any facts get in the way of a good Murdoch sponsered rant against the competition..err, BBC..can we?
> Just remember, security by obscurity is bad! ;)
All security is by obscurity, that is a fundamental truth of any system whose state can be altered. You have to know how to get its state to change and if you know how then you can change its state.
The issue is how much knowledge do you need to be able to change the state of a part of the system, and how much effort do you have to put in to get that information. Also how likely are you to be caught attempting to learn how, and how much of the system can you break into with that information before you have to learn more information (essentially the value of that information).
Strong cryptographic authentication uses a mathematical formula to produce a *different* method of access for each key, and the key is a description of the method. Thus, cracking one key gives you access only to the systems that use the method that that key describes. For a weak cypher, it is relatively easy to determine the correct method to access a system.
Similarly for *all* communication with a computer. If you know what software is used, and you know how to get it to respond, then you have access. So, since you are *always* relying on attackers not knowing the method to access your systems, you must ensure there is a different method for each system to limit damage when the method is no longer obscure.
"Security Through Obscurity" refers to the technique where many system use the same method and depend on none of the other systems being cracked. This is risky: ie, chances of cracking are small, but cost of cracking is extremely expensive as all systems become vulnerable. Though chances are not so small as one may think as the value of the knowledge needed to access the systems is extremely high, and thus more effort tends to be dedicated to its discovery.
This is why open source software will tend to become more secure over time (provided that there is a sufficient interest in its security - ie popularity). While it is less costly to discover the information necessary to crack a system, it is also less costly for the organisations that use it to discover that information, thus the systems tend to be fixed. That also devalues the knowledge from the perspective of the cracker. How many organisations will send their disks to MS for analysis vs how many can do the analysis with reference to the source code.
All those little factors cause the initial risk of open source software to be much higher, but the risk of a mature and popular system to be lower. Compare with closed source, which for new and unpopular software the risk is low, and for mature and popular software, the risk is high.
The best opportunity (as the world begins to realise the value of security) for closed source producers is to be cheap to market, quick to help mature an open source competitor, and quick to help your customers migrate to the open source alternative, siphoning a lucrative support and development contract as you move onto new product as restart the cycle.
Private agencies are out to make profits. BBC has no adverts. It has no reason to support any partners (due to a lack of them) and hence lack of bias.
Why not close all of BBC's TV channels? We've got UK Gold haven't we?
The World Service is funded directly by the UK foreign office, not the license fee. It's based in Bush House, and news in TVC have more to do with ABC then World. Outside SCAR and occasional shared guests I'm not aware of any contact between them.
BBC World (TV) is funded by adverts which affiliates sell. There is some (Sky orientated) controversy over sharing of resources between World and normal BBC News - they are linked a lot closer then World Service Radio/News, simulcasts, shared Newsreaders, shared reporters, shared floor crews, shared techies (Adam and Ed cover N8 and N9 equally). Hell, the studio equipment's stored in the same room!
Real Audio has been one of the main reasons I find myself booting Linux daily instead of Windows, since there is a fantastic clean real audio player for UNIX variants.
:-)
Dude, no need to burden yourself with booting Linux... Real Alternative
And, before you ask, yeah, there is a similar codec pack for Quicktime. The Google incantation for it will be left as an excersize to the viewer.
Erm, SunOS is Solaris.
No, it isn't. SunOS =5 is SVR4 and always distributed in bundle called "Solaris". Sun did distribute a late release of SunOS 4.x with Openwindows and called it Solaris 1.0 but most people confine the term "Solaris" to versions 2 and higher.
The version reported in SunOS 4. That means that, at best, they running on 9 year old hardware. I don't beleive that.