dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to MartinM

Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations.

(Yes, I have been and am a customer).

This is certainly what I have been saying for a long time.

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.

----------------------------------------------------

As the US Marines say, ""A Few Good Men".

(Didn't Paris Hilton say that too?)

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
I don't see any irony in it.

By still having enough POP to cover must corners, ultra low pings will still be available.

The concept of having so many POP's wasn't only for low pings, I explained many times that having 10% of your customer down on an emergency was easier to handle than 100%. This new move will keep only the best Data centers we've experienced, while maintaining low latency, and still having enough power to move away customer base to a different POP if there's an emergency, but with a higher impact (25% of customers affected). It will also allow u s to beef up a lot each of these POP's.

So no, really there's no irony in it. Only logic in keeping up with our growth, while maintaining the concept of geographically dispersed POP, but very strong ones instead of many smaller ones, and load balanced via SRV/DNS. Also, there's nothing to un-sell I think you're being a bit too dramatical here. No offence
--
Martin - VoIP.ms


Blunderbuss

@fastwebserver.de
reply to PX Eliezer70

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.

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.

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
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.


Blunderbuss

@fastwebserver.de

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.

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.

[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.]

Why would they bother when according to them, or maybe it is according to posters here, it is only a storm occurring once in 100 or 200 years that will ever cause them a problem?

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
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.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4

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


Blunderbuss

@fastwebserver.de
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.

DSLR98004

join:2012-07-16
Bellevue, WA
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).


pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Blunderbuss
The fallacy in the '100' and '200' year event comparison is that in NJ we have had 3 100 year events in the past 2 years!
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.