[sllug-members]: Comcast has problems

[Allen Parker]

On 1/22/07, Josh Coates <jcoates at archive.org> wrote:
> thanks for that stellar flame job allen and making this discussion personal.
Personal is calling another user 'stupid.' I'm sure your parents
taught you better.

> since I think you may actually be serious, i'll take the bait and comment on your points:
>
> >I'll be using >300GB this month on comcast, since I'm doing full disk
> >backups of 2 machines prior to moving service providers. Does that
> >mean that backing up my data is 'stupid' ?
>
> in your case, yes.  uploading 300GB over Comcast (386 kbps upload speed) means it would take you over 70 days to perform this operation under the best of circumstances.  why would you take monopolize your upstream bandwidth 24/7 for two months just to switch service providers?  you ask if i think this is stupid?  yes, it probably is.
>
Who the hell said anything about uploading 300GB? we're talking about downloads.

> >Remote mysql binlogging
>
> do you know any home users that mirror 250GB mysql databases that get 250GB of new records every month - oh, and for non-business use?  i didn't think so.

I know one privately run site that has over 250GB of db *CHANGE*
activity every month, which they replicate to a local machine for
long-term storage and incremental backups.

> >Keeping a cluster of freebsd/debian/gentoo/redhat/whatever machines up to date
>
> 250GB of apt-get update?  every month?  um...maybe 25GB but 250?  nuh uh.

Sure, why not? The user could be *not* using a local
debian/gentoo/redhat mirror and have world+dog installed, which they
keep up to date 3 times per day on 4-5 different machines which are
all running unstable/rawhide/~arch on, it doesn't seem completely
out-of-hand to me.

> >Running a home-based business where you're hitting windowsupdate on <250 completely unpatched machines every month
>
> i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure running a home based business off of a home Comcast line is against the EULA.  and if it isn't, then it would be stupid to try run your business on it when your business is large enough to require 250 work stations.

I know lots of guys that do hardware building at home that use
comcast/qwest/speakeasy home lines to patch client machines. And
again, I didn't say anything about 250 concurrent, all it'd take is
say avg 7-8 machines/day for wipe and reload style tech support (seen
it, done it, got the t-shirt). Figuring each machine is 1GB in
updates, and 250 machines are moved through every month, it's not
entirely unreasonable (we're talking xp/2000 with no service packs, as
the OEM 5-packs usually don't have service packs slipstreamed).

> even still, the patches are very small.  the server packs can be burned on CDs and a local server can be setup.  again, you'd have to be stupid admin to try and do it over the WAN on 250 machines.

Uninformed, lacking resources, etc... I worked in a shop where I was
the only person that knew how to make the local server (which had the
space) a caching proxy specifically for windows updates. 3 employees
were cranking through ~20 boxes/day with windows/virus/anti-spyware
updates, and yet despite having the knowledge, I never got the
go-ahead from the boss to get the job done, so making judgements about
what is and what is not stupid of another admin, especially on this
list, is bad form, since many of the users on this list don't have the
experience you must have to be so quick to say that everybody else is
wrong, again, without having a clue about legit uses that other people
might find.

> >Giving free wifi to your neighbors
>
> maybe if you gave free wifi to a couple of hundred of your neighbors it would add up 250GB per month, and again, IANAL, but i'm pretty sure this is against the comcast EULA.

250GB isn't all that much, as per google:
250 (GB per month) = 0.77878308 megabit per second (which is less than
I do on my little freebsd IRC server)

Your argument was just rendered moot. Do me at least a favor, and try
to think before you write, it's quite disturbing to see someone you
putting down people that don't have the same knowledgebase that you or
I have.

>
> allen, if you have anything useful to add to the discussion, that'd be great.
>
> otherwise, your bridge is thattaway.  ;-)

I don't need a bridge, I'm not being verbally abusive to other members
on this list ;-)

Cheers, and to everybody else on this list, have a great week