I imagine the way sharedband works is that it's a VPN endpoint. If you use VPNs (essentially creating another IP layer on top of the existing one), you *can* aggregate multiple connections and even get faster single-session transfer speeds.
www.sharedband.com
Bonds both Up and Down stream.
Layer 3 so you don't have to bother your ISP.
I have seen people bond FiOSS with DSL and Cable modems.
Sold directly or through your ISP if they offer the service.
Reliable and very cost effective.
The best thing (technology wise) with Sharedband is the ability to utilize around 95% of each line speed, even if they're widely mismatched.
I'm far from a sales person for the product (although I do know a lot about it), but it really is quite a cool solution. Upstream packets are redirected to an "aggregation server" (like an endpoint for your VPN) and distributed across 2 or more lines based on individual line weightings - not round-robin (MLPPP fails here).
From the aggregation server the packet headers are rewriten again, changing the source address to the service IP and peer'ed to the Internet, then downstream goes follows the return route back to the aggregation server for distribution across the customer lines again.
Sharedband weights lines separately on both their upstream and downstream - targeting >95% utilization of each line's available up and down bandwidth.
For a site-to-site situation, Sharedband itself immediately provides assistance - upstream and downstream bandwidth is immediately increased (and to an large extent, reliability too). In the situtation that both sites A and B use Sharedband aggregator C (i.e. hosted by some other company), traffic will flow from A to C (being aggregated on the upstream), and straight from C to B (being aggregated on the downstream). Vice versa in the opposite direction.
Of course there's the possibility of you hosting your own aggregation server (purchasing a software license from Sharedband themselves), which would let you host the aggregator in your own datacentre.
A final (and I believe unique) feature of Sharedband is packet resequencing - on the downstream, packets are ensured to arrive in order (as recevied at the aggregator). This lowers TCP retransmission requests etc, and further improves performance against other solutions.
Then again, right tool for the right job. You need to weigh up all the pros and cons!
For those who are geeks - email your questions to support@sharedband.com - they're good guys and they know what they're talking about.
Please excuse me if I've completely misunderstood how software is "sold", if someone could polietly correct me being wrong, I'd appreciate it.
As I understand it, you never "buy" software. Rather you purchase the right to use it. When you "sell" software, you're actually selling the right to use it. With software that comes on a CD, you can sell on your right to use the software, and hand over the CD (and license key) with it. People do infact sell Steam games (which they've bought on CD/DVD), but it results in some other poor guy not being able to register the copy on their steam account themself!
So if I've understood your point correctly, I think it's quite valid. When we buy the right to use the software, should companies like steam be thinking about allowing us a way to "pass that on"?
I think the point is that people don't really know what an OS/is/.
From Wikipedia:
An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer. An operating system processes raw system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems.
So the OS is software that talks to the hardware, handles the hardware, abstracts the hardware and (tries) to allow software running on top the OS to work without a software bug taking the entire machine down.
HOWEVER, it goes on to say:
Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. Linux, Mac OS, and Windows are some of the most popular OSes.
Unix is a cool operating system (IMO), it does things how I'd expect them to be done. There's a kernel, there's a GUI layer, shells, lots and lots of little (or large) "parts" that each fill a specific role and aim to do it well. Windows however (unless Vista has changed? I don't know...) the kernel and GUI are all wrapped into one "package" which IS the Operating System. The GUI is/apart/ of the OS. Linux (the kernel) has no GUI, X is the GUI. Ubuntu has done the (IMO) sensible thing (for desktop users who want a GUI and aren't too interested in learning how xorg.conf works) and gone half way between Windows and other Linux distributions, they've made X able to start, no matter what.
So the difference is, Ubuntu is still Unix, but they've made X indestructable(ish). I believe you can safely call Ubuntu an operating system, in that the kernel, dbus and hal all tie in very closely together and work with the hardware (as Wikipedia defines an OS), and X handles graphics hardware and human input devices. You can rip out X and still have an OS, infact you can strip it right down to just the kernel, it's STILL and OS. Microsoft took a different route and stuck it all together in a "gluey" (IMO mess). It's also still an OS. The GUI is an integral part.
Please feel free to disagree, I'd like to know what other (almost certainly more informed!) people think.
I'm not being funny, honestly, but why (as a Windows user) are you so shocked? This is the kind of thing that Microsoft have being doing to all non-Microsoft users for years already. The difference is, I'm willing to bet that it's only a case of waiting for Mac to finally port iTunes or whatever it needs to Win64 (as apposed to waiting for the moon to turn blue for Microsoft to port Office / PocketPC Sync / Windows MP / whatever to Linux for example).
If you buy a device such as an iPhone, which much alike the iPod is very clearly an Apple device which is stated to require Apple software, are you so suprised that it's not working for you on Windows?
I personally steer as far from all closed source stuff as I can. I use Windows when I practically need to use Windows and I'd absolutely love to own a MacBook for the benefits they bring (stability, size, weight, battery life, usability etc).
However I don't kick up a fuss when something doesn't work on Linux because it's Windows only, because/that's life/. People are so quick to accept Microsoft's marketing on their own stuff, but "oo dear", when Apple's new toy doesn't work on it everyone goes awol.
If I were you, I'd be asking myself why I'm using an Apple device on Microsoft's platform. If it's because I need both, I'd not be complaining that I have to buy a Mac to use the Apple hardware (when infact you don't, all you need is 32bit Windows).
And is it that much of a leap of faith to assume if God can create the world as it says in genesis to believe He could have created molecules with an atomic structure such that carbon dating says they're billions of years old? Or that as you said, that He could maybe just possibly decide to put fossiles in different layers so we *believe* that it's so much older than it really is? If He created the universe, is it really going to be that much harder for Him to create it with a bit of physical history? Umm. No.
"... and in further breaking news, Microsoft report also that Vista's net share is rising, their article says that just over 78% of computers connected to the Internet are using their new OS. The figures are from Microsoft themselves which collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of 40,000+ Web sites, including Live!, MSN, Hotmail and of course Microsoft.com..."
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine the way sharedband works is that it's a VPN endpoint. If you use VPNs (essentially creating another IP layer on top of the existing one), you *can* aggregate multiple connections and even get faster single-session transfer speeds.
Absolutely. See my post below:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406513&cid=29766837
Mod parent up!
www.sharedband.com Bonds both Up and Down stream. Layer 3 so you don't have to bother your ISP. I have seen people bond FiOSS with DSL and Cable modems. Sold directly or through your ISP if they offer the service. Reliable and very cost effective.
The best thing (technology wise) with Sharedband is the ability to utilize around 95% of each line speed, even if they're widely mismatched.
I'm far from a sales person for the product (although I do know a lot about it), but it really is quite a cool solution. Upstream packets are redirected to an "aggregation server" (like an endpoint for your VPN) and distributed across 2 or more lines based on individual line weightings - not round-robin (MLPPP fails here).
From the aggregation server the packet headers are rewriten again, changing the source address to the service IP and peer'ed to the Internet, then downstream goes follows the return route back to the aggregation server for distribution across the customer lines again.
Sharedband weights lines separately on both their upstream and downstream - targeting >95% utilization of each line's available up and down bandwidth.
For a site-to-site situation, Sharedband itself immediately provides assistance - upstream and downstream bandwidth is immediately increased (and to an large extent, reliability too). In the situtation that both sites A and B use Sharedband aggregator C (i.e. hosted by some other company), traffic will flow from A to C (being aggregated on the upstream), and straight from C to B (being aggregated on the downstream). Vice versa in the opposite direction.
Of course there's the possibility of you hosting your own aggregation server (purchasing a software license from Sharedband themselves), which would let you host the aggregator in your own datacentre.
A final (and I believe unique) feature of Sharedband is packet resequencing - on the downstream, packets are ensured to arrive in order (as recevied at the aggregator). This lowers TCP retransmission requests etc, and further improves performance against other solutions.
Then again, right tool for the right job. You need to weigh up all the pros and cons!
For those who are geeks - email your questions to support@sharedband.com - they're good guys and they know what they're talking about.
And I didn't understand this: "They breed quickly [and] require little space", but that's irrelevant, there's lots of space up there?!
Deception Point?!
Fricking sharks with fricking laserbeams attached to their fricking heads.
I think you should keep a public blog of your experiences though, I'd for one be very interested in reading it!
Looks like (with the 3D effeects) that they've taken a (nice) leaf out of the iWorks book. Cool!
http://www.apple.com/iwork/keynote/#effects
...soon everyone will love Linux. Unconditionally. (Sorry, had to say that :P No flames meant!)
"I LOVE LAMP"
Please excuse me if I've completely misunderstood how software is "sold", if someone could polietly correct me being wrong, I'd appreciate it.
As I understand it, you never "buy" software. Rather you purchase the right to use it. When you "sell" software, you're actually selling the right to use it. With software that comes on a CD, you can sell on your right to use the software, and hand over the CD (and license key) with it. People do infact sell Steam games (which they've bought on CD/DVD), but it results in some other poor guy not being able to register the copy on their steam account themself!
So if I've understood your point correctly, I think it's quite valid. When we buy the right to use the software, should companies like steam be thinking about allowing us a way to "pass that on"?
Just my thoughts.
Perhaps some Guitar Hero controlled Christmas tree lights? Got to be the coolest cubical ever!
Finally a use for that old GeForce 4 MX! Some people have far too much spare time...
Funny. Almost ironic in a way. Perhaps I should patent "Good service for good customers".
I think the point is that people don't really know what an OS /is/.
From Wikipedia:
An operating system (OS) is the software that manages the sharing of the resources of a computer. An operating system processes raw system data and user input, and responds by allocating and managing tasks and internal system resources as a service to users and programs of the system. At the foundation of all system software, an operating system performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking and managing file systems.So the OS is software that talks to the hardware, handles the hardware, abstracts the hardware and (tries) to allow software running on top the OS to work without a software bug taking the entire machine down.
HOWEVER, it goes on to say:
Most operating systems come with an application that provides a user interface for managing the operating system, such as a command line interpreter or graphical user interface. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. Linux, Mac OS, and Windows are some of the most popular OSes.Unix is a cool operating system (IMO), it does things how I'd expect them to be done. There's a kernel, there's a GUI layer, shells, lots and lots of little (or large) "parts" that each fill a specific role and aim to do it well. Windows however (unless Vista has changed? I don't know...) the kernel and GUI are all wrapped into one "package" which IS the Operating System. The GUI is /apart/ of the OS. Linux (the kernel) has no GUI, X is the GUI. Ubuntu has done the (IMO) sensible thing (for desktop users who want a GUI and aren't too interested in learning how xorg.conf works) and gone half way between Windows and other Linux distributions, they've made X able to start, no matter what.
So the difference is, Ubuntu is still Unix, but they've made X indestructable(ish). I believe you can safely call Ubuntu an operating system, in that the kernel, dbus and hal all tie in very closely together and work with the hardware (as Wikipedia defines an OS), and X handles graphics hardware and human input devices. You can rip out X and still have an OS, infact you can strip it right down to just the kernel, it's STILL and OS. Microsoft took a different route and stuck it all together in a "gluey" (IMO mess). It's also still an OS. The GUI is an integral part.
Please feel free to disagree, I'd like to know what other (almost certainly more informed!) people think.
rofl ... well played sir! +1 funny
I just like the tagging ambiguity ... "evenwomencanbeatit" ... I knew women had them, but I didn't know they were them.
Or you're working for NASA with a probe up and on Mars... jipers, run some CAT5E up there...
For those who don't know what Facebook is http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mvepYYNjfBk ... sums it up quite nicely imo.
And with an attitude like that, I bet you have no problem meeting that limit!
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comici d=877
I see this every day. For real.
I'm not being funny, honestly, but why (as a Windows user) are you so shocked? This is the kind of thing that Microsoft have being doing to all non-Microsoft users for years already. The difference is, I'm willing to bet that it's only a case of waiting for Mac to finally port iTunes or whatever it needs to Win64 (as apposed to waiting for the moon to turn blue for Microsoft to port Office / PocketPC Sync / Windows MP / whatever to Linux for example). If you buy a device such as an iPhone, which much alike the iPod is very clearly an Apple device which is stated to require Apple software, are you so suprised that it's not working for you on Windows? I personally steer as far from all closed source stuff as I can. I use Windows when I practically need to use Windows and I'd absolutely love to own a MacBook for the benefits they bring (stability, size, weight, battery life, usability etc). However I don't kick up a fuss when something doesn't work on Linux because it's Windows only, because /that's life/. People are so quick to accept Microsoft's marketing on their own stuff, but "oo dear", when Apple's new toy doesn't work on it everyone goes awol.
If I were you, I'd be asking myself why I'm using an Apple device on Microsoft's platform. If it's because I need both, I'd not be complaining that I have to buy a Mac to use the Apple hardware (when infact you don't, all you need is 32bit Windows).
but could this just be Microsoft trying to squeeze yet more dollars of profit out of everything they can (i.e. now virtulization)?
And is it that much of a leap of faith to assume if God can create the world as it says in genesis to believe He could have created molecules with an atomic structure such that carbon dating says they're billions of years old? Or that as you said, that He could maybe just possibly decide to put fossiles in different layers so we *believe* that it's so much older than it really is? If He created the universe, is it really going to be that much harder for Him to create it with a bit of physical history? Umm. No.