On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:06 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >
