Slashdot Mirror
A Crash Course on Network Bandwidth Metrics?
Kind of Blue asks: "I work for a small software development company in India, providing development services for a company in UK. We connect to the UK client through VPN; and our correct staff strength is around 13. We are going in for a major upgrade in our internet connection — and owing to the size of the firm, cannot afford the services of a networking expert/consultant. Hence I, a layman, have been asked to look into the matter and decide on the ISP and the bandwidth. I have a vague idea about the required bandwidth — it must be around 512 kbps(remember, it's India I am talking about!) and must be a persistent connection, since we use source control softwares connecting to servers in the UK.
There doesn't seem to be a 'networking for dummies' kind of resource on the web. No one seems to talk of network metrics anywhere. So, can Slashdot give me a crash course in what I need to know?"
"Our present ISP gives us a DSL connection of 512 kbps on 1:4 sharing. There are frequent disconnections; and hence loss of work while code check-ins. As we are increasing in strength, I am also looking at more bandwidth. But what bamboozles me is how are these things measured? Will I get a better bandwidth if I take a 512 leased line on 1:2 sharing? When the staff doubles, should I upgrade to a 512 connection on 1:1 sharing or must I take 1 Mbps on 1:4 sharing?(There's a huge price gap between the 2 here in India) In any case, how does one decide the optimum bandwidth required for a bunch of 15 developers on VPN and Source control?"
You say you can't afford to figure this out with an expert. My response is that you're asking your competition to help you cut your costs so that you can better compete with them.
Enjoy the answers.
-Tim Louden
Perhaps we can get together some day and discuss this while we take a ride to Walmart in your Lexus.
Seriously, I'm not convinced by the economists that our current import/export situation is a good thing, and I've always been a big Buy American advocate, but I find intense irony in the fact that my IT coworkers seem to all think I'm retarded for buying a Ford, but can go on endlessly about outsourcing programming to India.
I don't know Yonder Way, and maybe this doesn't describe him, but I've always been amazed at the hypocrisy on this topic, and the smug condescension toward displaced factory workers and such.
And one more thing: I don't fault the Indians for going to work at these jobs. I would certainly do it if I were in their shoes. I fault the American citizens for their purchasing and voting decisions.
Welcome to the world of business. Are you starting to understand why we charge as much as we do outside of India? It's because we have to support our business infrastructure and still make a profit for all our effort! Don't like it, go back to India. Oh wait...
You're (ostensibly) a professional services shop, seeking to provide (ahem) professional services to another company, over the internet. You plan on using the internet as your delivery method for the services rendered. Now, why on earth would you ask Slashdot for professional services advice? What if your customers instead decided to go it on their own for internet services? While a 13 person shop may be a small company, I refuse to believe that you cannot spend the money necessary to have a PROFESSIONAL consultant come in and advise you, at the very least, what your bandwidth needs are. I would surmise that your clients expect you to act like a professional shop - I'd recommend hiring a professional, instead of trying to skimp and asking Slashdot.
This article could probably be filed in the 'I need legal advice' portion of the archives.
(Also, if you're a programmer, at least try and check out Google. If you're technical enough to program, you're technical enough to grep at least some small portion of networking.)
Since you're not being very helpful, I'll give the guy a hand. Fortunately, I have a lot of time on my hands now that I'm unemployed here in the UK and...
Actually, forget that.
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
Quick question: what makes you or your neighbors so damn special that they have more rights (ha!) to hold down a job than some joe schmuck who just so happens to not live within some completely arbitrary geographical boundaries? And if you seriously believe that you "deserve" a job more than someone else, I suggest you emigrate to France and see how that works. Hint: it's not pretty.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
What gives then that "right" is more of an issue of fair play.
You see, his neighbor (in this implied situation) didn't lose his job because he done something wrong, he didn't lose it because some one better came along and could do it more efficiently. He didn't lose it because some produced a product cheaper from a better process. He lost it because some one is exploiting the difference in the econemy between two places.
If the dollar was the same value everywere and a gallon of milk cost the same in india, china, UK or USA, then the job would never have left the country. But the reality is that we are exploiting third world countries and lessor developed countries because they are lacking the development of econemy that the rest of the world has. We are seeing people working for pennies on the dollar mostly because when converting the penny to the other currency, it is valued more like a dollar.
Now, the right that is implied is were a company wishes to compete in one location but derive it's labor supply another. We aren't importing the product, just the labor for the product. In the real world, minimum wage laws, unions and trade contracts would place limits on the lowest a company can pay the employee but when outsourcing to other countries, they are getting around this. Imagine the government allowing mexicans to come to america legaly with the intended purpose of working for less then minimum wage at factories were normal workers get $12.00 per hour. It would never last (on a legal basis) but outsourcing is basicly allowing this to happen.
It might not exactly be a right to work more then a obligation for the company to hire employees in the country that they are set up in and doing business in. If the company wants to set up shop in that arbitary geographical location then let them hire all they want from there. Fireing some one in the location were you make your product, profits and public image in order to exploit the difference in currency or econemy in another location doesn't seem proper. If you think it's ok to screw the people over in the area making the bread and butter for your company then more power to ya. I'll save you a spot in the unemployment line when you find out your job has been replaced by someone doing it for 40 cents an hour because the working conditions and monetary value of the currency in some other country is so different. At least japan decided to make plants in america when the foreign cars cost so much less then american cars because the value of the yen.
Nope. Old money families usually own resources, not dollars. If you own a diamond mine worth $3 million today, and the dollar deflates by 100 - now you own a $300 million diamond mine. You've lost nothing. Same with stock, pork futures, or real estate.
The rich usually stay rich.
However, your $70k mortgage balance is still only $70k, while the value of the house is now $7 million. Any debt you (or rich people) hold would become trivial to pay off.