Any day now Rackshack should be releasing and opening up their new GigE to customers.

But just as fun.


Any speculation or insight on what the provider for the new GigE line might be?

=)

I hear it may be Williams Communication

Boy, they sure do need one. I was looking at their graphs and hope they don't lose one of their Gig-E lines as I am not sure if they have the aggregate to cover.

The link will indeed be Williams through their largest reseller. (IE There will be one extra hop in the middle as we get from RS to Williams) We have contracted two Gig-es from this provider but only one will be coming up next week. The second will come up in late August after they complete their POP upgrade to support teh traffic. Williams is currently upgrading their Pops from mainly dual OC-12s to Dual OC-48s at this time.

the bigger the better! .)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Boy, they sure do need one. I was looking at their graphs and hope they don't lose one of their Gig-E lines as I am not sure if they have the aggregate to cover.

Not that I'm a fan of RackShack, but it appears to me that they do. Maximum traffic between all three GigE connections is 1805.4 Mbps, not including any of their other connections.

I agree, it seemed to me they're in good shape as it is (although it's great to see some expansion!).

If you take all the highs for the day (across all lines) you get a total of about 1713 Mbps. Now if you take the total capacity (across all lines) you get about 3200 Mbps. Now that does not take into account the headroom needed for TCP/IP (I am not sure what the magic number is but I don't think you can push a full GIG out of a GIG-E line).

RS has a total of 3200 Mbps of Capacity
RS has a peek total of 1713 Mbps of Utilization

So if 1 GIG-E line drops, that gives them about 2200 Mbps available to service 1713 Mbps.

Now, if we say you can use only 90% of the lines capacity (someone here should know the real number). That would only give them about 1980 Mbps to service 1713 Mbps of traffic.

That is pretty darn close!

Isn't 13% the overhead for TCP? At least that's for DSL, but I would imagine so even for high speed link.

Peter

Originally posted by RackMy.com
[B
Now, if we say you can use only 90% of the lines capacity (someone here should know the real number). That would only give them about 1980 Mbps to service 1713 Mbps of traffic.

That is pretty darn close! [/B]


The problem is that we don't know what links are coming over what fibre carriers...

so they might be using a single fibre carrier and all these connections are coming over it... in the event of "back-hoe fade" you'll loose ALL the connections at once.

And even if they use 2 transport carriers and spread the interent connections across them - if they loose one transport carrier they'll loose 1/2 their bandwidth...

OUCH!

So - point is that its not just the number of internet providers you have and their usage - but what transport providers they have and how they're getting into the building that matters... (4 transport carriers don't help protect against construction damage if they all use the same path outside the building)

Originally posted by ckpeter
Isn't 13% the overhead for TCP? At least that's for DSL, but I would imagine so even for high speed link.

Peter

There's no real percentage, per se... its more of the packet size, and how many of them there are. It ranges between 10 and 20. The more packets, the more overhead.

- James

**Verio (#2) Gigabit Link to Internet - Coming July 15th** :eek: