cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

OMGsplosion! *idea*

N/A

OMGsplosion! *idea*

So USENET is on the way out right? Understandable, there have been serious problems with it and it was putting pressure on other services. However, now that USENET is going surely there is going to be a relatively large chunk of space free'd up on the servers? So why not move P2P up a level and see how it all goes for like a month or so? Naturally its understandable evermore that you want Plus.net for the more *standard* users who do not delve into downloading. And thats fine, thats good backing as a reason as to why not to do so. But if you wanted to be nice and not use that reason, giving us a higher level on P2P would be awesome :lol:


...sorry for the irrelivant subject title

[Moderator's note by Tom (tomspcs): Changed the majority of the thread title to be lower case as apposed to upper case. This makes it easier to read and keeps it within rules.]
6 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,469
Registered: 30-07-2007

OMGsplosion! *idea*

What 'free space' are you refering to?

If you mean the usenet traffic will be reduced thus leaving room for extra P2P traffic through the BT central pipes then that will not happen. Those heavy users of PNs usenet servers will just switch to an external pay-for service so the amount of usenet traffic going through the pipes will not change.
N/A

Re: OMGsplosion! *idea*

Quote
So USENET is on the way out right? Understandable, there have been serious problems with it and it was putting pressure on other services.


No. Only BINARY usenet has been removed the rest of usenet is still around - and that's a fairly big hunk of data in its own right. The pressure on other servicesHuh None - the problem was it was taking a network engineer working just on Usenet full time to maintain the service - not a viable nor sensible use of resources.


Quote
However, now that USENET is going surely there is going to be a relatively large chunk of space free'd up on the servers? So why not move P2P up a level and see how it all goes for like a month or so?

Nope, as pointed out all the users of usenet binary groups will just shift to external agencies and so keeping the amount of traffic transitting PN's network to the same levels.

(NB: I suspect the traffic volume for binary usenet will actually increase as at the moment only one copy of binary post is pulled down on to the usenet servers and that one copy is used by everyone accessing the PN service, now with people going outside the same single binary file will be comming from multiple sources and will be using the external PN links to the rest of the 'net every time it is requested).
N/A

Re: OMGsplosion! *idea*

Quote

(NB: I suspect the traffic volume for binary usenet will actually increase as at the moment only one copy of binary post is pulled down on to the usenet servers and that one copy is used by everyone accessing the PN service, now with people going outside the same single binary file will be comming from multiple sources and will be using the external PN links to the rest of the 'net every time it is requested).


Not to mention that people are also moving from a service with a retention of 3 days to external providers whose retention figures will be in the order of months. People will have an awful lot more to download.
MrToast
Grafter
Posts: 550
Registered: 31-07-2007

Re: OMGsplosion! *idea*

Quote

(NB: I suspect the traffic volume for binary usenet will actually increase as at the moment only one copy of binary post is pulled down on to the usenet servers and that one copy is used by everyone accessing the PN service..


Difficult to say that.

Not everything replicated on the local PN server will have been downloaded by users.

Without the statistics who knows how the 'download traffic' compares with the 'replication traffic'.
JonathanW
Grafter
Posts: 2,648
Registered: 02-10-2007

OMGsplosion! *idea*

When it comes to bandwidth user, every copy of a post that is pulled from our servers has to pass over the centrals and as such costs us in terms of central bandwidth. This isn't going to change when people start using external servers, as the only thing it will have an effect on is our transit bandwidth out to the internet.

Its possible that the transit bandwidth requirements will drop a little, as currently we're pulling in about a terrabyte of usenet posts a day, and its possible that the people using usenet won't pull down quite as much traffic.
N/A

OMGsplosion! *idea*

That actually makes little difference, PN have stated the issue is with the BT centrals not with the peering arrangements on the other side which are the ones which may or may not be taking extra pressure due to the increase in replecation traffic the traffic through the BT centrals was allways replication traffic going over the centrals with every download.

Traffic arangement.

1. End User
2. BT Exchange
3. BT IP Network (IP encapsulated ATM stream I think)
4. BT Central Pipe *
5. Plus Net Gateway
6. .plus.net servers/routers +
7. Fibre optic links *
8. PN Internet peers (Abovnet etc)
9. Rest of the public internet '

The points of possible slowdown are marked with *, in this case PN has been stating that 4 is where the major problem is, there could also be issues at 7 but in general bandwidth at that point is far less expensive than at 4 so tends to be possible to have a bit more there than at 4 meaning PN can send data in/out of that link easier than the central pipes.

The PN usenet servers were at the + so yes, true that they would bring only one copy of each file over 7 but still one copy per download goes over 4.

Of course the ' denotes the location of external usenet providers so now the data must go over 4 & 7 each time a user downloads a copy but as I allready said there is probably more bandwidth at 7 than 4 so clearly the one with the least bandwidth will be the limiting factor, the internet is a fast as the slowest link medium after all.