From owner-freebsd-isp Fri May 5 8: 1:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from epsilon.lucida.qc.ca (epsilon.lucida.qc.ca [216.95.146.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C7D237BF81 for ; Fri, 5 May 2000 08:01:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET) Received: (qmail 2485 invoked by uid 1000); 5 May 2000 15:01:37 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 May 2000 15:01:37 -0000 Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Matt Heckaman X-Sender: matt@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca To: "Gary D. Margiotta" Cc: spork , FreeBSD-ISP Subject: Re: freebsd hosting. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 5 May 2000, Gary D. Margiotta wrote: [...] : In correlation, I believe T1's are horridly expensive out West also, so : DSL, even if there is a slight downtime, is much more cost-effective than : a PTP or Frame circuit (this is my own guess, not based on any hard : evidence). [...] Depends on that business really. If you're in a line of work where any downtime upsets a large group of customers, downs their web pages, and so forth, it's far better to take the extra cost involved. I agree that if you want to provide an office with a high bandwidth solution, DSL is the way to go. I however do not trust it for production hosting on any application that requires 24/7 uptime. Matt Heckaman matt@arpa.mail.net http://www.lucida.qc.ca -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://www.lucida.qc.ca/pgp iD8DBQE5EuJQdMMtMcA1U5ARAuCsAJ48ucgMUtUxN5fKrtV30Atuz3+VRwCgkr7O dPfJI7rV4i3bMUF+Njmw0SQ= =EmYr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message