PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to Blunderbuss
Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations. 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 |
|
| 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). |
|
