[bf1942] Fat pipes, development servers

[Zachary Williams]

Cogent is very unreliable when it comes to latency.  200ms, is not uncommon.
They have minimal peering, and a pricing model at which they are still
burning cash at a rather astounding rate.

Cogent is great for hosting, but, if you're looking for a provider that will
give optimal connectivity to the largest group of people, cogent is just not
it.  The people that ping well, are fortunate.  Certainly nothing wrong with
their equipment, or their backbone.  Just the fact that they do not have a
lot of ways in/out of their network, and those few points that do allow
traffic in and out, are typically overloaded.

If it works well for you, that's great. :)  However, when it comes down to
gameserver hosting as a business, only places such as internap, the former
uunet (before it went to hell) and other fortified networks will offer the
best in terms of consistancy.

Zach

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scratch Monkey" <ScratchMonkey at SewingWitch.com>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: [bf1942] Fat pipes, development servers


> --On Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:39 PM -0500 Zachary Williams
> <admin at ztnet.com> wrote:
>
> > $90 for 1.25 megabit?  Perhaps on a Cogent connection, but not on solid
> > Tier1 bandwidth that will give good gameplay for people. :)
>
> What's wrong with a Cogent connection? I've got a T2 server colo'd on a
> Cogent connection and it seems to run nicely with 50 peeps (so far)
> connected to it. Is there a problem I should be aware of?
>
> > Granted, it's
> > only a test connection, but we'd be perfectly willing to donate server
> > space and bandwidth for public testing.  We're a dedicated gameserver
> > provider, and would be more than willing to let the EA Linux Dev crew
put
> > up new patches, and open up the server to public pounding, prior to
> > officially making a downloadable release.  In hopes that certain things
> > can be caught prior to a mass release.
>
> Sounds good. I was thinking about offering a shell account on my server
for
> live gdb debugging but I realized they might be reticent about leaving
> their source code there. They might require a box to which they hold the
> only keys, to keep the suits happy.
>