[103476] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cooling door
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (vijay gill)
Wed Apr 2 12:45:36 2008
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:44:07 -0700
From: "vijay gill" <vgill@vijaygill.com>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B002439D35@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_2115_21930722.1207154647385
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I doubt we'll ever see the day when running gigabit across
> > town becomes cost effective when compared to running gigabit
> > to the other end of your server room/cage/whatever.
>
> You show me the ISP with the majority of their userbase located
> at the other end of their server room, and I'll concede the argument.
>
> Last time I looked the eyeballs were across town so I already have
> to deliver my gigabit feed across town. My theory is that you can
> achieve some scaling advantages by delivering it from multiple locations
> instead of concentrating one end of that gigabit feed in a big blob
> data center where the cooling systems will fail within an hour or two
> of a major power systems failure.
It might be worth the effort to actually operate a business with real
datacenters and customers before going off with these homilies. Experience
says that for every transaction sent to the user, there are a multiplicity
of transactions on the backend that need to occur. This is why the bandwidth
into a datacenter is often 100x smaller than the bandwidth inside the
datacenter.
Communication within a rack, communication within a cluster, communication
within a colo and then communication within a campus are different than
communication with a user.
/vijay
>
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
------=_Part_2115_21930722.1207154647385
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> I doubt we'll ever see the day when running gigabit across<br>
> town becomes cost effective when compared to running gigabit<br>
> to the other end of your server room/cage/whatever.<br>
<br>
</div>You show me the ISP with the majority of their userbase located<br>
at the other end of their server room, and I'll concede the argument.<br>
<br>
Last time I looked the eyeballs were across town so I already have<br>
to deliver my gigabit feed across town. My theory is that you can<br>
achieve some scaling advantages by delivering it from multiple locations<br>
instead of concentrating one end of that gigabit feed in a big blob<br>
data center where the cooling systems will fail within an hour or two<br>
of a major power systems failure.</blockquote><div><br>It might be worth the effort to actually operate a business with real datacenters and customers before going off with these homilies. Experience says that for every transaction sent to the user, there are a multiplicity of transactions on the backend that need to occur. This is why the bandwidth into a datacenter is often 100x smaller than the bandwidth inside the datacenter.<br>
<br>Communication within a rack, communication within a cluster, communication within a colo and then communication within a campus are different than communication with a user.<br><br>/vijay<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
--Michael Dillon<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_2115_21930722.1207154647385--
