I've done a similar setup at my house for probably similar reasons - solves the problem of friends bringing over their nappy computers with ancient video cards and me having to upgrade that and get it all running every lan party.
I used opensolaris (and now openindiana) for the back end server. It has lots of ram and some SSDs for the l2arc cache so most things end up being cached. I use zfs snapshots for the clone systems.
This works well, and performance falls somewhere between an SSD and a Hard drive for gaming load times... with one exception.. boot times for the diskless systems is horrible. Like 2 minutes each.
It looks like you are booting your windows off VHD and putting the differential on the local SSD? Any benefits of doing that over just running everything from the backend server?
I'm thinking about getting an SSD for mine and using that for the boot partition of the systems, and then having steam on an iscsi mount off the backend server. That should give great performance, and fast boot times. But I wouldn't be able to rollback the OS to the master state like I can do now.
Yeah, so what did you do software wise?
I think it's a matter of Cogent trying to strongarm its position. It wouldn't be the first time Cogent has done this and it certainly won't be the last. Doing a Google search for "peering dispute", and not including Comcast (to exclude the Comcast vs. Level3 dispute since it's newer and ongoing), almost every old entry involves Cogent duking it out with someone. They win customers on price, but things seem to be lopsided enough that they get into a scuffle with a number of the other Tier-1 providers.
Mike from HE spells it out pretty clearly from almost 2 years ago on the NANOG list:
I have no reason to think that their stance has changed any.
Are you kidding? This isn't about merit. It's a game of odds.
This big law firm smells dollars, and lots of them. If they can squeeze any kind of settlement out of Zuck, it might be worth it just for their cut of the cash. They're in it for a big win, and for no other reason. This supposed email is what they'll hinge the whole case on.
"One of the oldest techniques in the attacker's virtual arsenal, buffer overflows remain a problem. In December, Microsoft identified 2.6 million possible attacks that could be waged using a stack-based buffer overflow in the JRE (Java Runtime Engine)".
The absent ones are always at fault.