Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment 1,050 people for a 1,000 person tower (Score 2) 274

Here's what you're missing. The article is about what happens when a tower hits maximum capacity for a moment.
Suppose the hardware on the tower is capable of serving 1,000 people per second*. There are 1,050 people who want to download this second. Sorry, 50 people are going to have to wait one second. The tower can only handle 1,000. That's just a fact. They aren't "messing with" anything, that's just what the hardware is capable of.

What Verizon has decided is that when there is an overload and somebody will have to wait a second, it'll be the heaviest users who have to wait. After all, they've already used "more than their fair share".

* it's actually how many packets and bytes the tower can serve per second / millisecond, not customer count. The person who uses a lot will wait milliseconds.

Submission + - What would you do with half a rack of server space?

Christian Gainsbrugh writes: I work at a company that is currently transitioning all our servers into the cloud. In the interim we have half a rack of server space in a great datacenter that will soon be sitting completely idle for the next few months until our lease runs out.

Right now the space is occupied by around 8 HP g series servers, a watchguard xtm firewall, cisco switch and some various other equipment. All in all there are probably around 20 or so physical XEON processors, and probably close to 10 tb of storage among all the machines. We have a dedicated 10 mbs connection that is burstable to 100mbs.

I'm curious what slashdot readers would do if they were in a similar situation. Is there anything productive that could be done with these resources? Obviously something revenue generating is great, but even if there is something novel that could be done with these servers we would be interested in putting them to good use.

Christian Gainsbrugh
Lead Developer
LearningCart
www.LearningCart.com

Comment 1,000 of you is expensive (Score 1) 274

Your entire post is basically repeating the same failure of logic over and over.
They don't put up a new tower for one customer, true. However, 1,000 customers like you mean that 10 more towers hit capacity and ten more need to be added. Verizon isn't making decisions one customer at a time. If they lost a many of their 150 GB / month customers, they could provide better service for a lot more 15GB / month customers and make a lot more money. That would be a good thing for them.

Comment too late at the first sentence (Score 1) 274

> Find the towers that sometimes saturate and then ...

Too late. TFA is about what happens while the tower is saturated, how they divide the available bandwidth between the customers WHEN IT'S SATURATED. Once that has already occurred, it's too late to go back and do analysis and not do what they are doing. They do in fact add towers as you suggest, but this story is about what happens when the tower first becomes overloaded. The overload has to be handled somehow immediately, while it's occurring.

Comment Re:1 or 1 million (Score 4, Insightful) 274

Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.

Nobody sane claimed that Verizon was offering unlimited bandwidth. Bandwidth was quite obviously limited to 3G speeds, and then subsequently LTE speeds.

Verizon offered unlimited "data," as in no artificial limit on the amount of data that you could download using that bandwidth. Verizon subsequently imposed artificial limits on the amount of data that users could download per month on other plans. Verizon is now limiting bandwidth based upon the amount of data one has downloaded combined with a somewhat arbitrary measure of congestion -- they don't bother to specify what utilization threshold a cell base station has to cross to be considered "congested" so as to trigger the limitation.

Physics has nothing to do with that limitation. Physics does not dictate that a shared resource be preferentially allocated to those not on an "unlimited" plan because the provider quite badly wants to push users onto pay-per-quantity plans without taking the PR hit necessary to actually terminate the now month-to-month unlimited contracts.

Submission + - Dear museums: uploading your content to Wikimedia Commons just got easier (wikipedia.org)

The ed17 writes: Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) are now facing fewer barriers to uploading their content to Wikimedia Commons—the website that stores most of Wikipedia's images and videos. Previously, these institutions had to build customized scripts or be lucky enough to find a Wikimedia volunteer to do the work for them. According to the toolset's coordinator Liam Wyatt, "this is a giant leap forward in giving GLAMs the agency to share with Commons on their own terms."

Comment Re:Small effect? (Score 2) 274

Why not take the buttloads of profit you a-holes are making an build out your network instead of coming up with this Rube Goldberg throttling crap?

When this question was put to Lowell C. McAdam, CEO of Verizon, his response was, "Because fuck you, that's why. And by the way, sign this new user agreement where you give away any rights to sue Verizon for anything ever for the rest of your life and agree to instead face arbitration by that group of Verizon lawyers, sitting right over there with the "Fuck You, That's Why" t-shirts".

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...