I think MS getting involved with Open Source is great, but....
We've seen the way that they work before, embrace and extend... This hasn't worked out that well for them before, but you have to ask if there is an alterior motive in there...
*shakes head* When you get a clue, come back and talk. Look at what happens in large data centres (1000s of racks), and have a think about why they do it.
It'll be interesting to see what you do next, I'll put money on anohter website. Maybe web journo? I think there are more than enough people out there who would give you a chance because of what you have done for the tech community.
Parent made mention of half a TB and 100Mb link, so that's what I did the math off. Also, you don't have to do a big bang approach, migrate user by user or duplicate their mailboxes then you can move them in seconds.
What if the "cloud" provider or otherwise outsourcer has better hardware / backup / change management than you do? At what point does the solution stop being "crap"?
Hang on, re-reading, what are you migrating? Servers reside in Head Offce or cloud provider, either way, same deal, where are you migrating them to? Another service?
Cached mode allows you to run a lot smaller (Down to 9.6Kb/s/user if memory serves) data lines.
There was no mention in the grandparent post about migration... But if you want to bring it up; do the math... That's about 14 hours, so you remote in and move everyone's mailboxes on a fri night or a sat and check in a couple of times on the weekend. If you're really worried about it, there is tools from Quest to help:
Given that you would be running in cached mode, once your users were up and running that would be fine. I've seen 80 users hanging off a 2Mb connection back to head office where Exchange was hosted, so 500 users... You could get away with 10Mb easily.
I don't know where you are now, but I get gig for 2.5k pcm with unlimited data. If you have 500 users then getting two to have telco redundancy is EXTREMELY affordable.
The moment that providing such bandwidth at a reasonable price even domestically (Within Aus) comes closer to parity to what's paid in Europe and America for bandwidth, let me know. I'll give you an example, get a 1Gb internet line with unlimited data (Truly unlimited) for AUD $2k or a 1Gb to the US for AUD $4k. My comment came from the fact that Australians (And a number of other countries around Asia) are used to ordering low bandwidth lines because of the extortionate pricing that you are made to pay over there.
If you can put 100Gb links in the hands of researchers and uni students when they get older and go into decision making positions, they will be wondering why bandwidth like what they had 10 years ago isn't common place and will change things.
10Gb for the financial markets are now common place in Europe and America, 100Gb is not far off. This is where Aus has to be looking at and looking at now if it's not going to be left behind again.
To sorta go along with the previous poster, the ISPs don't need to throttle you internationally, latency does that for you. Look up TCP window sizes and have a play with it on your computer and watch your speed go up.
AARNet was originally run by Optus and was a 45Mbps connection, that's now been taken over by Telstra and they offer 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s connections. Telstra will have to plan this 5 years out as they will have to put fibre / wavelegnths aside on their interstate backhauls to accomodate this. So, the fibre is already there, they just haven't allowed for enough bandwidth to serve the requirements. It's stuff like this that is holding back telecommunications in asia.
They are talking about the network that connects all their universities and colleges to the internet as well as to each other. They'll fill that in a year. 10 x 10Gbps links for a backbone? That should be minimum connection for a site.
100Gb/s isn't far away and DWDM kit will be capable of this in 5 - 7 years, if they are planning it, this is what they should be planning for.
Google gets free hosting / bandwidth from most of the ISPs in the world because they want to reduce their bandwidth bill. Google container? What did you think they did with that tech?
95% of people watch 5% of the content... THAT will come from the container....
So if Google hosts your data there, then there is a good possibility you will be just as close if not closer than Akamai. With the increases in CPU / HDD space, why not?
I wouldn't necessarily argue for building upwards to accommodate more people, I would be much more in favour of building upwards to give people more space.
Yeah right, like that's going to happen. You give a landlord / developer the ability to build upwards and you could nearly photograph the pound signs flashing in his eyes......
Not that I'd be completely decided each way, but I'm sure there are enough crappy areas in the city that nobody would miss:)
Quite a few actually, both north and south of the river. I guess there is only so much money for the local development authorities to work with....
The technology is there for artificial foundations (You don't need a giant slab of granite or sandstone to build on any more) and has been for a while, this is how they built the old ABN AMRO now RBS building on Bishopsgate and the Gherkin. Around central London from the local councils, you can get planning permission for a sub-divide as your not going up.
As a generalisation, a lot of people in London don't want to change the general look of London. They are tied to it's history and the idea of rapid change doesn't sit with them.
Besides, all the blue plaques that would have to be gotten rid of and there would be a bunch of people complaining about the historical value of something if it were to be taken down.
I think the biggest force to stop people around London from majorly increasing demand aside from will is Infrastructure, I don't know when you left, but the Northern, Victoria and Centra lines etc are still crap in the mornings and trying to put another 50 million people onto them just is not going to work. Ripping up Oxford street to replace all the old water pipes is a good example of how old a lot of things are.
They are able, but not willing. A lot of people in London and a lot of English, don't want their city going up and up and up in height. A lot less natural light, and more people. They don't want London turning into Singapore which is the way that it would go if the developers had their way.
If you look at what they are doing on the A380s and the amount of channels streaming the same thing on a different time shift it looks like broadcast / multicast.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Scott Adam's take:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-12-28/
Information from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement#Dutch_Sandwich
It's quite common, and is done by a *lot* of companies
> alterior
bad spelling, ulterior. Sorry, my bad.
I think MS getting involved with Open Source is great, but....
We've seen the way that they work before, embrace and extend... This hasn't worked out that well for them before, but you have to ask if there is an alterior motive in there...
*shakes head* When you get a clue, come back and talk. Look at what happens in large data centres (1000s of racks), and have a think about why they do it.
Silver Fox have a great range of products:
http://www.silfox.com/store/labelling-solutions
The ones I use most are the ones you can feed through a laser printer:
http://www.silfox.com/store/labelling-solutions/cable-labels/wrap-around-cable-labels/laser.aspx
Now you bring in hogsheads?!!?! I was still trying to get my head around Libraries Of Congress and velocity of sheep in a vacuum....
This was originally covered by thereg in 2005:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/24/vulture_central_standards/
Updated in 2007:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/28/additional_reg_standards/
And again in 2010 it seems by the BBC:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/10/dollar_coins/
Yes, this is all UK centric, but it's amusing anyway,
actually for commodities trading, he's not far off....
404 Art.... The file size is 40.4 KB in size.
Co-incidence? I think not!
Their back..
Looks like they have got themselves sorted again.
It'll be interesting to see what you do next, I'll put money on anohter website. Maybe web journo? I think there are more than enough people out there who would give you a chance because of what you have done for the tech community.
Best of luck,
Berny Stapleton
Parent made mention of half a TB and 100Mb link, so that's what I did the math off. Also, you don't have to do a big bang approach, migrate user by user or duplicate their mailboxes then you can move them in seconds.
What if the "cloud" provider or otherwise outsourcer has better hardware / backup / change management than you do? At what point does the solution stop being "crap"?
Hang on, re-reading, what are you migrating? Servers reside in Head Offce or cloud provider, either way, same deal, where are you migrating them to? Another service?
Cached mode allows you to run a lot smaller (Down to 9.6Kb/s/user if memory serves) data lines.
ROFL loads, but can't understand your point
There was no mention in the grandparent post about migration... But if you want to bring it up; do the math... That's about 14 hours, so you remote in and move everyone's mailboxes on a fri night or a sat and check in a couple of times on the weekend. If you're really worried about it, there is tools from Quest to help:
http://www.quest.com/exchange-uc/
*shrug* still don't see the big deal here....
Given that you would be running in cached mode, once your users were up and running that would be fine. I've seen 80 users hanging off a 2Mb connection back to head office where Exchange was hosted, so 500 users... You could get away with 10Mb easily.
I don't know where you are now, but I get gig for 2.5k pcm with unlimited data. If you have 500 users then getting two to have telco redundancy is EXTREMELY affordable.
The moment that providing such bandwidth at a reasonable price even domestically (Within Aus) comes closer to parity to what's paid in Europe and America for bandwidth, let me know. I'll give you an example, get a 1Gb internet line with unlimited data (Truly unlimited) for AUD $2k or a 1Gb to the US for AUD $4k. My comment came from the fact that Australians (And a number of other countries around Asia) are used to ordering low bandwidth lines because of the extortionate pricing that you are made to pay over there.
If you can put 100Gb links in the hands of researchers and uni students when they get older and go into decision making positions, they will be wondering why bandwidth like what they had 10 years ago isn't common place and will change things.
10Gb for the financial markets are now common place in Europe and America, 100Gb is not far off. This is where Aus has to be looking at and looking at now if it's not going to be left behind again.
So Telstra just manages the fibre network and doesn't AARNet doesn't use any of it's bandwidth?
To sorta go along with the previous poster, the ISPs don't need to throttle you internationally, latency does that for you. Look up TCP window sizes and have a play with it on your computer and watch your speed go up.
AARNet was originally run by Optus and was a 45Mbps connection, that's now been taken over by Telstra and they offer 100Mb/s or 1Gb/s connections. Telstra will have to plan this 5 years out as they will have to put fibre / wavelegnths aside on their interstate backhauls to accomodate this. So, the fibre is already there, they just haven't allowed for enough bandwidth to serve the requirements. It's stuff like this that is holding back telecommunications in asia.
They are talking about the network that connects all their universities and colleges to the internet as well as to each other. They'll fill that in a year. 10 x 10Gbps links for a backbone? That should be minimum connection for a site.
100Gb/s isn't far away and DWDM kit will be capable of this in 5 - 7 years, if they are planning it, this is what they should be planning for.
Yeah...
Google gets free hosting / bandwidth from most of the ISPs in the world because they want to reduce their bandwidth bill. Google container? What did you think they did with that tech?
95% of people watch 5% of the content... THAT will come from the container....
So if Google hosts your data there, then there is a good possibility you will be just as close if not closer than Akamai. With the increases in CPU / HDD space, why not?
I wouldn't necessarily argue for building upwards to accommodate more people, I would be much more in favour of building upwards to give people more space.
Yeah right, like that's going to happen. You give a landlord / developer the ability to build upwards and you could nearly photograph the pound signs flashing in his eyes......
Not that I'd be completely decided each way, but I'm sure there are enough crappy areas in the city that nobody would miss :)
Quite a few actually, both north and south of the river. I guess there is only so much money for the local development authorities to work with....
The technology is there for artificial foundations (You don't need a giant slab of granite or sandstone to build on any more) and has been for a while, this is how they built the old ABN AMRO now RBS building on Bishopsgate and the Gherkin. Around central London from the local councils, you can get planning permission for a sub-divide as your not going up.
As a generalisation, a lot of people in London don't want to change the general look of London. They are tied to it's history and the idea of rapid change doesn't sit with them.
Besides, all the blue plaques that would have to be gotten rid of and there would be a bunch of people complaining about the historical value of something if it were to be taken down.
I think the biggest force to stop people around London from majorly increasing demand aside from will is Infrastructure, I don't know when you left, but the Northern, Victoria and Centra lines etc are still crap in the mornings and trying to put another 50 million people onto them just is not going to work. Ripping up Oxford street to replace all the old water pipes is a good example of how old a lot of things are.
They are able, but not willing. A lot of people in London and a lot of English, don't want their city going up and up and up in height. A lot less natural light, and more people. They don't want London turning into Singapore which is the way that it would go if the developers had their way.
If you look at what they are doing on the A380s and the amount of channels streaming the same thing on a different time shift it looks like broadcast / multicast.
Multicast and an Aruba / Cisco AP for every 10 seats? Can't be that hard can it? It would be interesting sniffing data on that plane...