Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 09:30:57 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Matt Heckaman <matt@ARPA.MAIL.NET> Cc: "Gary D. Margiotta" <gary@tbe.net>, spork <spork@super-g.com>, FreeBSD-ISP <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: freebsd hosting. Message-ID: <200005051530.JAA25030@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005051058240.2471-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005051023420.63612-100000@thud.tbe.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005051058240.2471-100000@epsilon.lucida.qc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : 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. Interestingly enough, I'm using DSL for 'home office' work, and I've got a script that measures reliability (pings, etc...) that has run for well over 4 months. In that time, I've had 15 seconds of down-time related to DSL, and 10 minutes of downtime related to my ISP re-configuring his Cisco 2-3 times which shutoff access in the middle of the night. I'd have to say I'm *very* pleased with DSL, howevever, it's a slower link than most 'commercial' companies would consider acceptable, 256/272K. But, it works great for my little operation. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005051530.JAA25030>