Re: Server specs?

Greg wrote: > > Nils van der Laan wrote: > > > snip.... > > - Application servers on 12 locations, connected to our WAN using 64k > > leased lines (in the future this will be frame-relay). > > > > Nils - my experience is 64K isn't much bandwidth to have more than a > handful of concurrent users sharing. I realize bandwidth is probably > very expensive, so you will probably benefit from giving serious thought > to the network architecture. > Uhmm, 64K is plenty of bandwidth! Boy you people are getting spoiled! What we are talking about seems to be nightly downloads, minimal file transactions during the day with end users doing data entry etc .. which requires minimal bandwidth. we are talking 64K leased lines, which means no other traffic. Even 64K in to a private cloud is plenty. T1s / E1s are expensive. 3K per month is not dirt cheap, and thats per T1. (Thats US dollars, your site may vary due to distance, carrier and tarifs.) It all depends on the application requirements. Heck you could probably use ADSL (?sp?) If ATM is an option, you may want to consider this depending on how the data centers are structured, and the amount of data replication and transfers are required. If this is a pilot project, remember you can always grow a bigger pipe if needed. (Fract T1s may be a possibility.)[E1s in your case.] -Mikey (OK so I'm really Deepthroat and I bugged the Watergate in '73) -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif ***************************** Due to AGIS's Refusal to Act Responsibly We are blocking all of their domains at the packet level. This block will exist until AGIS modifies their policies to conform to existing RFCs and net community standards. We encourage all ISPs and domain holders to do the same. *****************************