bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Matt
Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon
said by Matt  :said by bigunk :Not to get off topic, but tell that to my gigabit Windows 2003 Servers. I routinely transfer 100+MB (megabytes) a second between my FTP servers. of course, they have extremely beefy internal RAID-10 arrays, but to say Windows can't do that is simply not true. My Windows machines and Linux machine both exhibit the same transfer rates, so we're likely switch/nic limited, not OS or software limited. Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine. You give me the proof from a speed measurement tool that is recognized and accepted, and I will gladly change my position. I simply believe the *NIX world is faster and more efficient than Windows, and that is one of the gating factors. In other words it is the OS architecture that is to blame here. Can Windows get faster? Sure. Will it get faster? More than likely. I refer to today, not in the future (where *NIX will probably still show an edge).
--
There is not a man in the country that can't make a living for himself and family. But he can't make a living for them AND his government, the way his government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheap as the people.
- Will Rogers |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by bigunk :said by Matt :said by bigunk :Not to get off topic, but tell that to my gigabit Windows 2003 Servers. I routinely transfer 100+MB (megabytes) a second between my FTP servers. of course, they have extremely beefy internal RAID-10 arrays, but to say Windows can't do that is simply not true. My Windows machines and Linux machine both exhibit the same transfer rates, so we're likely switch/nic limited, not OS or software limited. Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine. You give me the proof from a speed measurement tool that is recognized and accepted, and I will gladly change my position. I simply believe the *NIX world is faster and more efficient than Windows, and that is one of the gating factors. In other words it is the OS architecture that is to blame here. Can Windows get faster? Sure. Will it get faster? More than likely. I refer to today, not in the future (where *NIX will probably still show an edge). I'm not arguing, just pointing out that I have Windows machines doing 1Gbps, which you said wasn't possible.
I don't have 10Gbps capability and I really don't care to debate the merits of Windows vs. Linux. I run both Windows and Linux servers, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. I will point out however that Myricom makes 10Gbps cluster gear that runs on Windows using the standard Windows IP stack and 10Gbps gear for the IBM BladeCenter line has been available for ages. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to bigunk
I can't find much in the way of transfer rate comparisons for Linux v. Windows at 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps Ethernet.
»www.yale.edu/fastcamac/gigabit/g···nnt.html is quite old and indicates an initial advantage to Linux.
»www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.c···/3485486 comes very close but does NOT mention the Windows performance, only that Linux got 895 Mbps. They imply, but DON'T say, that Windows was in the same ballpark.
Finally, the devil is in the details -- »softwarecommunity.intel.com/arti···1259.htm shows that interactions of the XP OS and the ext3 file system, of all things, can lead to drastic differences in measured throughput.
Oh, and as to the OP, I'm sure Verizon will be very happy to hear about this.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| quote:
Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine.
I know this is really OT on such an active thread, but I do think
Windows does seem to generally have trouble utilizing a gigabit network. I spent many hours trying to tweak and tune the performance of my server. Sometimes I can get them to transfer data at around 40gb/s, and even around 70-80gb/s "bursts" from cache, but the performance is not consistent and nowhere near the performance of the local disks. I think I've tried every single performance tuning article and adjusting every network setting there is. And these are with Intel server adapters!
Local:
DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru
Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst"
Test File Size: 512 MB
Testing Uncached New File Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 40.21 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.4%
Testing Uncached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 56.12 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.9%
Testing Uncached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 29.34 MB/s, CPU Load: -0.2%
Testing Cached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 30.18 MB/s, CPU Load: 4.1%
Testing Cached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 50.97 MB/s, CPU Load: 6.2%
Networked:
DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru
Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst"
Test File Size: 512 MB
Testing Uncached New File Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 13.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2%
Testing Uncached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 6.53 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.9%
Testing Uncached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 6.49 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.1%
Testing Cached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 27.61 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2%
Testing Cached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 10.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.7%
With GigE I should have plenty of bandwidth to get close to my local disk speed. But the results are awful. It's just fast enough to tell me that I'm not stuck at 10/100. If I reboot the server the numbers may jump up a bit for a while. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| You're using a mapped drive for your test and are thus relying on NetBIOS/SMB.
I assume you've tested with lower level transfers as well (ftp et al.?).
See also the Intel link I posted above, if you haven't already seen it.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to djrobx
Informal Test |
said by djrobx : quote:
Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine.
I know this is really OT on such an active thread, but I do think Windows does seem to generally have trouble utilizing a gigabit network. I spent many hours trying to tweak and tune the performance of my server. Sometimes I can get them to transfer data at around 40gb/s, and even around 70-80gb/s "bursts" from cache, but the performance is not consistent and nowhere near the performance of the local disks. I think I've tried every single performance tuning article and adjusting every network setting there is. And these are with Intel server adapters! Local: DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst" Test File Size: 512 MB Testing Uncached New File Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 40.21 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.4% Testing Uncached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 56.12 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.9% Testing Uncached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 29.34 MB/s, CPU Load: -0.2% Testing Cached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 30.18 MB/s, CPU Load: 4.1% Testing Cached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 50.97 MB/s, CPU Load: 6.2% Networked: DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst" Test File Size: 512 MB Testing Uncached New File Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 13.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2% Testing Uncached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 6.53 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.9% Testing Uncached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 6.49 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.1% Testing Cached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 27.61 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2% Testing Cached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 10.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.7% With GigE I should have plenty of bandwidth to get close to my local disk speed. But the results are awful. It's just fast enough to tell me that I'm not stuck at 10/100. If I reboot the server the numbers may jump up a bit for a while. Those disk throughput numbers are terrible, I'm not surprised you have throughput trouble. My RAID arrays sustain over 160MB/sec and burst to 550MB/sec or so.
In addition, you're using a program written in 2002. You may want to try updating your benchmark tool. iOMeter or even SiSoft Sandra can test network shares if you want disk-to-disk network performance. To truly test OS level IP stack efficiency, you need something like iXChariot to test the connection by transferring from the memory of one server to the memory of another.
Anyway, sorry for hijacking your thread OP!
Perhaps a mod should split this discussion out and drop it in the network forum? |
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
2 edits | reply to saber11
»Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
3 edits | EDIT: Well hello to all the visitors from ArsTechnica, Slashdot, and the rest of the web! You might see that the leaked memo originally posted here is now missing above. We don't know why the original leaker sanitized it (I can guess), but it's worth noting that many "news" sites are linking here without giving ANY credit to DSL Reports / BroadBandReports, without crediting news guy Karl and his original (often plagiarized) article at »Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges? , without linking to the proper beginning of this thread at »[TWC] Pricing model changing soon , and/or without crediting the original leaker, whom I presume is now hiding under an assumed name in Guam. Now back to our originally scheduled thread in progress. 
said by saber11 :NETWORK Project to plan integration of the Adelphia backbone into the TWC network, creating a nationwide TWC backbone. TWC will merge all IP based services (video, voice, data) onto a single common converged network platform. Oh, well THAT should be simple; they've got that Staples Easy Button, after all.
Thanks for the documentation. They're clearly insane. Anywhere there's reasonable competition, folks will flee. Then again, people really don't much care about this sort of thing, so I might have to take that back.
As to the "Speed Preview" that's going to be counterproductive. If anything, it will prove to most people why they should probably save money and LOWER their tier.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | reply to saber11
well i'll be damned.
I have a feeling that this, like Ohio's caps, will be short lived. |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to saber11
said by saber11 :...We will use the results of the trial to evaluate results for possible future nationwide rollouts. it's a trial, and they'll more than likely conclude from the inevitable negative response that this action will not be worthwhile at all. Personally, I'd rather have DSL running at 3-6Mbps/384-768Kbps direct than 15/768 shared+caps. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | reply to saber11
Interesting!
It's been rumored that Comcast has tested a similar system but never launched it for fear of consumer backlash, and I'd assume the same thing would happen here.
Note, we posted a story about this on the front page at 3:30.
Looks like Ars Technica read it and reconstituted their own version at 4:15, their write-up getting the digg traffic and Slashdot traffic. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to saber11
said by saber11 :The introduction of Consumption Based Billing will enable TWC to charge customer based upon usage, impacting only 5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth. I'm curious what the average bandwidth usage of a single subscriber in that 5% would be ....
I agree with Karl and others though; I think this will fail for the most part. They may implement a lower speed tier with consumption based billing, but if they sledgehammer this across all residential customers, they'll just drive that 5% to the Business Class side and move the problem. Only this time, the problem could possibly impact big money ... |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| I think these companies will ultimately convince the public that these pricing schemes are inevitable (look at all the FUD stories about a looming bandwidth crunch), and we'll start seeing overages for extreme-use customers.
Of course when you consider the countless grannies who only consume a tiny bit of bandwidth it all evens out in the end, but I think the investor pressure to always see quarterly gains will make overages happen eventually....
I still think it would be marketing suicide, but who knows. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA | reply to saber11
Why are they so concerned with that 5% of heavy users? |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by hopeflicker :Why are they so concerned with that 5% of heavy users? "5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth"
That 5% loses TW money, or they're at the least not profitable. |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by tiger72 :said by hopeflicker :Why are they so concerned with that 5% of heavy users? "5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth" That 5% loses TW money, or they're at the least not profitable. so if im reading this right, 5% of the users on their network use over half of the bandwidth? This is suspect to me.
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Nope, that sounds about right.
And it's COMPLETELY typical on any computer network! (And probably any voice network for that matter.)
A competent and responsible network management understands, accepts, and deals with that, especially when those users are PAYING to be there. The management does NOT figure out new and exciting ways of showing that 5% the door.
Because guess what? After that top 5% leaves, there's STILL another level of 5 or 10 percent who represent the NEW "Top Talkers" on the network, and now THEY become the next target for execution.
How much utilization is little enough? Perhaps we should all just turn off our modems and send Time Warner checks every month anyway?
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by B :Perhaps we should all just turn off our modems and send Time Warner checks every month anyway? -- B Shhhhh! Don't give them any ideas. 
Or at least patent a very broad definition of the method for turning off a modem but collecting a check and then sue them when they implement it. |
|
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Of course when you consider the countless grannies who only consume a tiny bit of bandwidth it all evens out in the end, but I think the investor pressure to always see quarterly gains will make overages happen eventually.... I still think it would be marketing suicide, but who knows. I agree with the marketing challenges, but disagree with the granny analysis. Many, many users (including myself) are Internet veterans and use broadband fairly heavily. However "heavy users" don't come close to the 300+G of the top 5%.
I bet that the majority of the BBR folks here are in the 40-60G / month range, but think they are going to be impacted by issues like this. In reality it is the multi-terabyte p2p DVD downloader that causes faster than normal network growth requirements and the push to usage tiers.
I'm not a granny, and don't like subsidizing your DVD library.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
AMDUSER
Premium
join:2003-05-28
Earth
clubs: | reply to kba4
As would I, if it meant that there would not be any overage charges.
AT&T dryloop dsl 6 meg is only $38.99, only a couple ($2 - 3) dollars more then the 7 Meg/512k service from TWC. |
|
