Re: [cobalt-users] Kernel Update 2.0.1 C35

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

GHL> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:26:45 -0500
GHL> From: Greg Hewitt-Long


GHL> Many of our sites are e-commerce sites - some doing many
GHL> thousands of dollars every single day... I'm not putting
GHL> these on T1s - that would be playing with matches while
GHL> doused in gasoline.  I looked at your site, and the links
GHL> you provided would indicate a significant portion of the
GHL> sites you host may well be of a type where snappiness and
GHL> reliability are secondary concerns (you appear to have a
GHL> high number of almost hobby type sites) - our customer
GHL> profile is purely commercial sites - we don't do hobby sites
GHL> - our name is Web Your Business - with an emphasis on the
GHL> word "Business".
GHL>
GHL> See this:
GHL>
GHL> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=business+web+design

See this:

http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.webyourbusiness.com

That's a bit scary.


GHL> As to the local situation - in a state where the local loop
GHL> is controlled by Qwest, T1 is bordering on a joke - anyone
GHL> offering a "professional" service on such a connection
GHL> (single pipe), is borderline criminal misrepresentation or
GHL> fraud in my opinion.  T1s are supposedly on offer from

Likewise, I hope mission-critical e-commerce sites are not hosted
on Cobalts. :-)


GHL> "Colorado SuperNet" - or CSN.NET - a site which only
GHL> responds rarely.  It matters not who sells you a T1 service
GHL> - the fact remains that the copper/fiber to your location in
GHL> Colorado belongs to Qwest - you have to beg those b@st@rds
GHL> to get an engineer out when even a basic phone line is down
GHL> - I'd not trust them as far as I can provide them for only a
GHL> T1 either.  At least with an OC12 from Qwest and a 2nd from
GHL> AT&T, the co-location facility we use has a decent amount of
GHL> clout to get something fixed if they (Qwest) have a SNAFU or
GHL> unexplained outage.

Good amount of truth in this.


GHL> Perhaps your situation is different - but where I am, T1
GHL> lines wouldn't even be economical - with connections to this
GHL> location running around $350 T1 service, plus local loop
GHL> ($450), plus traffic, we would be looking at $1000+ a month
GHL> for T1 access - that's 8 servers at our co-location - at
GHL> which point, I'd be even more wary of having them here on a
GHL> single line.

T1s often are more expensive.  The advantages are:

* Running one's own network, if one has sufficient clue.

* [Remote] monitoring helps... but if one has physical access to
  a machine, one can do all sorts of nasty things.


GHL> I am, and will remain the sole arbiter of what is necessary.

As it should be.


GHL> My choice of provider is based on plenty of experience, both
GHL> working for banks, venture capital companies and

Not sure I'd brag about banks, considering how sloppy many of
them are wrt infrastructure.


GHL> insurance/reinsurance companies in the UK, plus locally
GHL> dealing with Telcos and the like - I'm NEVER going to put my
GHL> faith and my company's reputation on the line with a T1 or
GHL> other phone based system while Qwest has a strangle hold
GHL> over the sole connection - NEVER!  Your situation may well
GHL> be different, but please try to tell me that you know my
GHL> situation or business better than me - you aren't even
GHL> located in the same state as us.

s/please try/please don't try/ I presume?


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to
be blocked.