Do you think this is wise? Any webhosting companies out there doing this? If so, have you had any complaints from your clients?

I'm not sure if it's wise or unwise to have cogent as a provider. Anyone that uses just cogent is crazy, though.

Or bases their prices on being able to deliver Cogent.

Originally posted by Planet Z
I'm not sure if it's wise or unwise to have cogent as a provider. Anyone that uses just cogent is crazy, though.

I agree, but you could also argue that it is crazy to offer 'Unlimited Traffic & Bandwidth'.

Cogent are bringing in peering, adding redundancy

I think a webhosting company should have atleast 2 different connections to different backbones, Cogent/Yipes makes a decent mix but what if cogent goes out of business? Then you're business dies. I think cogent is actualyl going to hurt the hosting industy for a while rather than help it.

I love these threads. Hardly any host uses them, but all have comments on them. It seems that Cogent is nothing more then a buzzword on these boards. People think Cogent = Cheap, crap bandwidth and that no one else offers the same gig-e service. This is not true.

As a note, there are a few other gig-e providers offering similar prices. Cogent is not the only one.

Ifthere are alot of them they why dont you name some of them...

Ifthere are alot of them they why dont you name some of them...

I'd be happy to help you with your research. PM me.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
People think Cogent = Cheap, crap bandwidth and that no one else offers the same gig-e service.

I don't think we all think Cogent means crap bandwidth, however when a company comes up with a business model being able to offer something A LOT cheaper than everyone else one gets suspicious. Or should I say little concerned - on one hand you hope they will survive cause a cheap supplier will mean lower prices overall - on the other hand one is afraid thjey will not make it - why are there able to do it when noone else can at those prices?

im not doing research i just dont understand why you keep stating there is more provider doing the exact same thing as cogent for the same price, and you dont name who they are... if your going to throw out something back it up...

why are there able to do it when noone else can at those prices?

No offense, but you are thinking Cogent technology and bandwidth is the same as the standard tier 1 delivery means. They are different. It is like saying a car is the same thing as a motorcycle. They both get you where you want to go. But the similarities stop there. Do some research on what Cogent is doing and you might have a better understanding.

im not doing research i just dont understand why you keep stating there is more provider doing the exact same thing as cogent for the same price, and you dont name who they are... if your going to throw out something back it up...

Only you my young friend can turn every post into a bash contest. For those who have PM'ed me, I have told who else offers this. If you think there is only one type of car - a BMW, and then someone post "there are more", do you think they really want to waste time educating someone like you who is rude in every post? No, you PMing would give me great pleasure.

why are there able to do it when noone else can at those prices?

For sake of arguement and preventing another post from Charles, here is the difference - Cogent uses the latest in IP over Fiber Optics technology, meaning you get direct *ethernet* connectivity into the core of the Internet backbone. This means no telco frustration and expense of T-1, DS-3, OC-3, etc. It is pure bandwidth at the 10, 100, and 1000 Megabits/second speeds. Not the standard tier1/baby bell Tx/DSx products which will always be more expensive.

I know how cogent works, more then likely better then you, i simply asked you to post who you knew that provided the same service, im sure there are many people on this boards who would like to know.

As for turning this into a bashing contest you seem to excel with that, i simply asked you to post who they are, take it how you will.

Time out for both of you!!!

As far as I know, (not a lot) Cogent is very cheap!

I've heard people say it's crap...But, the people saying it's crap, have you used their services?

Just because it's cheap, doesn't mean it's crap. It may mean someone is doing it different, a lot more effecient, and saving hell of a lot of money. (My perception. Not based on any research...)

Rackshack Customers, How is Rackshack doing? How are their services? Is it crap? (Just curious...)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


For sake of arguement and preventing another post from Charles, here is the difference - Cogent uses the latest in IP over Fiber Optics technology, meaning you get direct *ethernet* connectivity into the core of the Internet backbone. This means no telco frustration and expense of T-1, DS-3, OC-3, etc. It is pure bandwidth at the 10, 100, and 1000 Megabits/second speeds. Not the standard tier1/baby bell Tx/DSx products which will always be more expensive.

If this is true other companies will offer the same direct ethernet connectivity into the core of the internet backbone as well but why aren't they doing it?

Originally posted by cbaker17
I know how cogent works, more then likely better then you, i simply asked you to post who you knew that provided the same service, im sure there are many people on this boards who would like to know.

As for turning this into a bashing contest you seem to excel with that, i simply asked you to post who they are, take it how you will.

I second that, I would also like to know who they are.

There aren't any.... Yikes is kinda cheap :)

Originally posted by Synergy
If this is true other companies will offer the same direct ethernet connectivity into the core of the internet backbone as well but why aren't they doing it?

It's hard to justify scrapping billions of dollars of ATM equipment.

If this is true other companies will offer the same direct ethernet connectivity into the core of the internet backbone as well but why aren't they doing it?

Ok, you caught me. I made it up.

For others, it is true. "Why aren't they doing it?" Some are. Also, common sense would dictate why many don't want to or are waiting.

I do not work for a tier 1, but to me *one* of the main reasons would be the fact that if you are a provider selling bandwidth at a certain price, and then you offer another solution that is so much cheaper, you would be afraid of losing customers to it. You would be eating your own so to speak.

It is still to new for anyone to tell the future of gig-e, but ethernet connectivity makes more sense to me. I guarantee if Cogent succeeds, you will see tier 1s offering this to compete. Look at the buzz it has caused here alone. Of course this is all a hypothesis on my part. But the fact remains, others are offering gig ethernet.

To me it is similar as to why RLX was the only one releasing blade technology for a while (if there were others, I never found them)? Now Compaq, Dell, etc... are set to release blade technology.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
To me it is similar as to why RLX was the only one releasing blade technology for a while (if there were others, I never found them)? Now Compaq, Dell, etc... are set to release blade technology.

OT, but "blade technology" is hardly new. Telcoms have used hotswap blades for ages, and many embedded systems have used ISA or PCI system cards on passive backplanes for several years.

The transition to using these for commodity servers may be new (and arguably the result of inefficient pricing structures), but it was hardly unexpected, or particularly difficult.

One thing to note is that Cogent is losing money to the tune of $10mil/mo or so. That will dry up financing fast. And most of their claimed investment was bond guarantees from Cisco. That is, Cisco gave them equipment and expects it to be paid back as Cogent grows. It's a bit tricky. For now Cogent works well, but be wary of betting the farm on it.

Drew

According to broadbandweek ( http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/010108/print/010108_news_gige.htm ) Yipes, Cogent, SBC, & XO are all on the Gig-E bandwagon. The question is how hard do you have to hit them over the head to get them to offer you the cheaper choice.

Again -

To me it is similar as to why RLX was the only one releasing blade technology

Notice the work "releasing". If you knew where to but blade servers, you were way ahead of me. RLX is the first that I was aware that mainstreamed them.

( http://www.broadbandweek.com/news/0...8_news_gige.htm ) Yipes, Cogent, SBC, & XO are all on the Gig-E bandwagon.

Funny thing is that article is almost a year old.

Originally posted by big_smooth
Time out for both of you!!!

As far as I know, (not a lot) Cogent is very cheap!

I've heard people say it's crap...But, the people saying it's crap, have you used their services?

Just because it's cheap, doesn't mean it's crap. It may mean someone is doing it different, a lot more effecient, and saving hell of a lot of money. (My perception. Not based on any research...)

Rackshack Customers, How is Rackshack doing? How are their services? Is it crap? (Just curious...)

Ssssllllllllooooooowwwwwwgggeeeennntttt. Great price for latent bandwidth

Has anyone else noticed high packet loss with these guys?

Coming from a few different backbones to them, I'm seeing around 15 to 20% packet loss - consistently.

Not trying to start a flame was here, I'm neutral to these guys.

TomK

I'm not a very large techy type guy but it seems as though their providers might not ne the problem but rackshack.net's network setup or equipment. I have used their raqs in the past mostly to help out friends who bought them and noticed these things.

What is the possibility of poor setup or equipment causing such problems?

Or do you guys think it's bandwidth like cogent that i causing this problem? Personally I don't see how it can be cogent as they've started using them recently and Rackshack.net has always been like this.

Originally posted by web_res
I'm not a very large techy type guy but it seems as though their providers might not ne the problem but rackshack.net's network setup or equipment. I have used their raqs in the past mostly to help out friends who bought them and noticed these things.

What is the possibility of poor setup or equipment causing such problems?

Or do you guys think it's bandwidth like cogent that i causing this problem? Personally I don't see how it can be cogent as they've started using them recently and Rackshack.net has always been like this.

I don't think RackShack buys top of the line equipment.

Why is everybody so against Cogent? Think about it. They give you 100MBPS line for $3000 a month. Ya so it's not the best quality or whatever but you don't see anybody going down on RackShack saying stuff like "Oh that RackShack is so bad because they offer dedicated servers with lots of bandwidth for $100 a month." People don't do that. They say, "Ya RackShack isn't the best for quality but for a starter solution I think it's pretty good"

UmBillyCord,

Do you ever, like **work for a living**?? It seems that all you do is post in WHT.

Just curious.

Originally posted by Coran
UmBillyCord,

Do you ever, like **work for a living**?? It seems that all you do is post in WHT.

Just curious. That seems more than curious.:rolleyes:
Actually, rather rude.:eek:
I work for a living. And I post here more than Billy. :blush:
He seems to know a helluva lot more about this subject than me, so I'll just move on now and let UBC talk.



:D

Originally posted by Coran
UmBillyCord,

Do you ever, like **work for a living**?? It seems that all you do is post in WHT.

Just curious.

I think you are thinking of UmChickenHawk ;)

Originally posted by Coran
UmBillyCord,

Do you ever, like **work for a living**?? It seems that all you do is post in WHT.

Just curious.

Losers like me, SWR, cbaker, Chicken, etc... have nothing else better to do then post here. (Aside from running companies and teaching, and whatever else we losers do)

Do you have something to say? Or are you just looking to play with a cat little mouse.

In terms of latency, Cogent is a little slower, but recently they have been improving this.

In terms of throughput, though, Cogent is most impressive.

Originally posted by voxtreme-matt
In terms of latency, Cogent is a little slower, but recently they have been improving this.

round trip latency ~~ distance-along-network * (1 ms / 100km) ~~ distance * (graph-curvature) * (1 ms / 100km)
where graph-curvature ranges from 2 for very weakly connected graphs down to 1 for fully-connected graphs.
High latency is an inevitable consequence of having fewer distinct links available.

In terms of throughput, though, Cogent is most impressive.

Any consistently underutilized network will demonstrate high (TCP) throughput.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord

For sake of arguement and preventing another post from Charles, here is the difference - Cogent uses the latest in IP over Fiber Optics technology, meaning you get direct *ethernet* connectivity into the core of the Internet backbone. This means no telco frustration and expense of T-1, DS-3, OC-3, etc. It is pure bandwidth at the 10, 100, and 1000 Megabits/second speeds. Not the standard tier1/baby bell Tx/DSx products which will always be more expensive.

A couple of corrections to the above paragraph:

1. Since most Internet traffic is not on Cogent's backbone, you will most likely not have ethernet connectivity into the "core" of the Internet backbone. Eventually you will have hop onto the ATM backbone of one of the Tier 1 providers.

2. You will never see the full 10, 100, or 1000 Meg connections. TCP has a cost overhead of about 30%.


Other providers who are offering, or looking to offer, this service:

Qwest: http://www.qwest.com/about/media/pressroom/1,1720,637_current,00.html?printVersion=1&xmlFilename=2001May08637&storyId=637

Sprint and WorldCom: http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/columnists/2001/1029edge1.html

The three main companies in this area are:

Cogent
Yipes
Telseon

The companies seem to be doing okay money wise, but all three have announced network scalebacks this year (ie they are not entering into new markets). This could present problems as none of them are profitable, and if the tier 1 carriers get more aggressive in their adoption of the technology, they already have the infrastructure to dwarf the networks of these three providers.

Originally posted by uuallan
2. You will never see the full 10, 100, or 1000 Meg connections. TCP has a cost overhead of about 30%.

s/30/4/

TCP overhead in a typical connection is approximately 60 bytes out of every 1500. (40 bytes + half of an ack).

It's also worth noting that IP-over-ATM has much higher overhead (roughly 10-15%) than IP-over-ethernet.

Another note ATM is outdated and most large backbones use SONET

Originally posted by cperciva


s/30/4/


Good catch :), that was supposed to be 3, not 30 0-- which would have been off, but not by nearly as much :)

Thanks!

Since most Internet traffic is not on Cogent's backbone, you will most likely not have ethernet connectivity into the "core" of the Internet backbone. Eventually you will have hop onto the ATM backbone of one of the Tier 1 providers.

Isn't that what I said - "meaning you get direct *ethernet* connectivity into the core of the Internet backbone. " No one ever said anything about point to point ethernet connectivity. The backbone of the Internet are these "Tier 1 providers"

You will never see the full 10, 100, or 1000 Meg connections. TCP has a cost overhead of about 30%.

Don't think I said you would. I just pointed out how Cogent sells bandwidth. Also I think your numbers are off 30%????

and if the tier 1 carriers get more aggressive in their adoption of the technology, they already have the infrastructure to dwarf the networks of these three providers.

Who cares? That would mean Cogent did its job. It introduced new technology, proved it could work, and then forced the big boys to rethink. This results in lower cost to us - the consumer.

Of course the "who cares?" would be most of us, as I always like seeing the smaller companies who got things started stay in business. It keeps the big guys honest. DSL is a good example. But I think there are enough tier 1's to make sure bandwidth will stay cheap.

Originally posted by Tetraboy
Another note ATM is outdated and most large backbones use SONET

Error in comparison: Types differ.

ATM is a cell-switched network protocol designed to run on top of the data link provided by SONET.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


Who cares? That would mean Cogent did its job. It introduced new technology, proved it could work, and then forced the big boys to rethink. This results in lower cost to us - the consumer.

Of course the "who cares?" would be most of us, as I always like seeing the smaller companies who got things started stay in business. It keeps the big guys honest. DSL is a good example. But I think there are enough tier 1's to make sure bandwidth will stay cheap.

If you are using one of the three providers to host your customers, which was the original point of this thread, you should.

DSL is an interesting example. If the same things happens with this these three companies that happened with Rhythms and Northpoint -- shutting customers off with less than a week notice -- then your hosting business could be severely impacted if you rely on them for part, or all of your connectivity.

I don't think Slowgent is a proper name. From what I've seen cogent has been fast. ( even downloading off of UUNet. )

If you are using one of the three providers to host your customers, which was the original point of this thread, you should.

I'm with you, but then you must wonder - Why would any one run anything business critical without redundancy?

Also, it all goes back to research and constant vigilance. We pulled our DSL order with North Point because we saw what was coming. Putting trust in good companies and constantly monitoring them is key. If you throw all your eggs into one basket, how smart were you in the first place and who *really* is to blame?

Originally posted by Tetraboy
I don't think Slowgent is a proper name. From what I've seen cogent has been fast. ( even downloading off of UUNet. )

Are we talking throughoutput or latency?

In either throughput or latency, there are no problems here from Atlanta. You can see a traceroute that uses Cogent at:

http://atl.cobalthost.net/cgi-bin/traceroute.cgi

As an example, we are 15 ms from Yahoo! and most everything in D.C. The throughput, which you cannot really test here, is GREAT as well. Generally 1-5 Mbps up/down depending on who we're connecting with. I've seen as high as 30 Mbps.

Drew