OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to MartinM
Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations. The fewer POP centers you offer, the better. Ideally I'd like to know only one host and always connect to it.
Example - www.google.com. It allows all users to know and use just one host name to connect to. And I presume there is no big latency for all users around the country. At least I don't see ping time getting more then 27-28ms from whatever location I try... How do they do it? Do they provide different DNS resolutions for different geo-locations? Or may be they are using some very fast and reliable hosts just redirecting incoming connection? I don't know. But I know for sure, that it's possible to have global coverage, very high reliability and fast service (low ping tame) at the same time. Please try to make and use something similar.
BTW, I always expected, that your SIP servers (POP hosts) independently of their current location all use the same logic - directing RTP traffic using shortest distance (in Internet terms) between SIP client and RTP host, serving corresponding DID. If it's not, please do it ASAP. It will improve quality of voice for us, customers. Thanks.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
| reply to MartinM
Martin,
I would agree that fewer "Super Pops" would be a good idea. I would definitely add one more server location in Vancouver and change New York to Chicago.
I think these would be the best locations for attaining a nice North American latency balance.
Dallas
Montreal
Chicago
Los Angeles
Vancouver
--
Ian Barnes
SofSwitch Communications Inc.
|
|
|
|
| reply to MartinM
I've been using Voip.ms as my primary phone service for over two years now. I was excited when the Seattle server came online, with a ping 1/5th of that of the Los Angeles server. In use, though, there was no perceivable difference in voice delay or call quality. And last weekend, when we were re-routed to Tampa (with a 6x longer ping), there was still no perceivable difference.
So, while the Seattle server is a great selling point when I convince my friends to switch to voip.ms, I wouldn't be devastated if it were sacrificed for the better good.
BTW, Martin, the first line of your original post should say "not inappropriate". Or drop the "not" and just say "appropriate".  |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to IanBarnes
Gee, the second person who thinks that the whole US East Coast is not spongeworthy.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that one POP for the US and one POP for Canada would be fine.
But [IF] there are going to be 4-6 POPs then it is insane to not have one serving the East....
Dallas
Montreal
Chicago
Los Angeles
Vancouver
The New York metro area alone has 19 million people. In other words, more than half the population of the whole country of Canada.
»factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tab···pe=table
Really, now. |
|
decxPremium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to MartinM
As others have said, if the move will increase server uptime and call routing reliability while maintaining a decent data routing/latency then I'm all.
Regarding the Seattle server, I find it pretty good. I use the Seattle server from various locations around the world and it has worked for me so far with only a few minor issues. |
|
| reply to MartinM
I'll vote for any plan that increases reliability and yields the highest benefit-to-cost ratio. |
|
 mozerdLight Will Pierce The DarknessPremium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON | reply to Mango
+1
ESPECIALLY automatic fail-over between PoPs |
|
| reply to PX Eliezer
Quality is more important than quantity, and the concept of super-low ping has been oversold.
The irony is, you will now have to un-sell it.
With even two servers they will have redundancy. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Blunderbuss :I never thought they were selling low ping-time, but redundant servers, so that if one went down you could switch to another.
With even two servers they will have redundancy.
If they were doing that, they could have half of their servers in Houston, and half in Montreal.
Or they could have 1/3 in Montreal, 1/3 in New York, and 1/3 in Dallas.
Your premise is clearly false because they have servers in TEN (10) different US and Canadian cities. That's way beyond what's needed for reasonable redundancy.
[Now, I'm sure that someone will jump in and say that CallCentric has the opposite geosituation. Point taken, although their core setup utilizes massive physical hardware that doesn't lend itself to virtualization on servers. But they do need to continue to work to address this.]
Be that as it may, lots of Voip.MS customers talk all the time about ping ping ping. To many of them it is more important than football, hockey, food, or sex. |
|
| reply to PX Eliezer
It's not relevant how many people live in certain area because if these are "Super Pops", then each one will need to handle a large amount of connections, while giving decent latency to all corners of North America. It has to be a balance all the way around. Many times it depends on what ISP is being used and what backbone providers the ISP is using.
These cities would be fine.....
New York uses Chicago POP (5 hops 20ms)
New York uses Dallas POP (8 hops 44ms)
Washington uses Chicago POP (6 hops 24ms)
Washington uses Dallas POP (8 hops 32ms)
Miami uses Chicago (9 hops 32ms)
Miami uses Dallas (9 hops 28ms)
Atlanta uses Chicago (8 hops 24ms)
Atlanta uses Dallas (8 hops 20ms)
Oh, and I do think you're spongeworthy 
--
Ian Barnes
SofSwitch Communications Inc.
|
|
| reply to PX Eliezer
Your premise is clearly false because they have servers in TEN (10) different US and Canadian cities. That's way beyond what's needed for reasonable redundancy.
[Now, I'm sure that someone will jump in and say that CallCentric has the opposite geosituation....But they do need to continue to work to address this.] |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Blunderbuss :It isn't just for redundancy; as Martin has said, it is easier to deal with a problem when it affects only 10 percent of the users rather than 100 percent.
Why should servers be going down at all?
When did you hear of servers going down at Voipo, CallWithUs, Localphone or Voxbeam, Ooma, Anveo, Junction Networks, Packet8, and so forth? Not with any regularity, for sure. Maybe once or twice at most in several years.
The funny thing is that another company that had a lot of problems with server issues was [ViaTalk]---and THEY believed in having their servers widely scattered too. |
|
MartinMVoIP.msPremium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
1 edit | Let's not get this off topic and derail the thread from its primary objective. All providers have problems at some point. (Hurricane, Data Center failures, [D]DoS).
We're seeking feedback from active customers about their opinion of the possibility of having fewer POP's, not another debate about geo location vs call centric, this has been beaten to death by fanatics of both sides.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:11 Reviews:
·Anveo
 ·Shaw
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·FreePhoneLine
 ·TELUS
1 edit | reply to OZO
said by OZO:directing RTP traffic using shortest distance (in Internet terms) between SIP client and RTP host, serving corresponding DID. If it's not, please do it ASAP. It will improve quality of voice for us, customers. Thanks. Though I agree with you, I suspect they will not do this and I understand why. Making this work properly requires significantly more difficult configuration on the user's side. They likely believe (correctly) that this would increase support load significantly, and also bad PR when people blame one-way audio issues on them, when they're actually caused by a misconfigured ATA. |
|
Reviews:
·Anveo
·Callcentric
·voip.ms
| reply to MartinM
I think this is a great idea. Automatic load balancing and failover would only improve the service.
As a customer, I sometimes wonder when I have issues if it's server related. For example, the server has too many customers connected. Load balancing would solve this issue.
Like some customers, I have experienced loss of service due to a pop issues. This could have been a result of a server issue. A server fail over would solve this issue.
MartinM, if this plan is accepted, what would be a rough time line to have the geo locations established?
|
|
| reply to MartinM
My feedback is that I would like to see two or three servers that will automatically failover and work in such a way that I do not have to change the settings in my ata or on the voip.ms panel when the connection changes to another server.
Each server will have a potentially infinite capacity simply by plugging in another drive or box or whatever it is that it takes to expand the capacity.
If you get a ddos attack your super servers will hardly notice it; your customers will not notice it at all.
The servers will be as reliable as a pots line.
I will be happy to pay higher fees for this. |
|
| reply to MartinM
MartinM: I support your plan. I live just outside of Seattle, but Houston is my primary POP (with Los Angeles as my fallback). |
|
 gerick
join:2001-01-17
San Antonio, TX | reply to gweidenh
said by gweidenh:Go with Dallas for your Texas location.
Most Texas ISP traffic is routed through Dallas before it hits the wild wonderful internet.
Ditto this. Anytime I check speeds with AT&T, it is always shorter ping time from San Antonio or Austin to Dallas than it is to Houston. I think that there are larger pipes out of Dallas. |
|
| reply to NefCanuck
said by NefCanuck:One other thing I would strongly urge you to consider if a consolidation of POP's is in the cards. Automatic fallover in case a particular POP goes down and one central place for all voicemail for the POP's.
Dittos to this. Even now, when we "server-hop", or when you reroute when a server is down, the voice mail issue becomes a problem. However you do it, the same voice mail accounts need to be accessible from all servers. The same is true for Internal extensions - they should be able to work across servers. And automatic failover would also provide some additional peace of mind. |
|
 mau108MauPremium
join:2001-10-07
Thornhill, ON | reply to MartinM
yes please setup one location for voicemail! switching servers and having a different voice mail greeting is annoying as hell! |
|
