RESNET PERFORMANCE UPDATE

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:30 pm

I don't think they will either. But it'll be nice to hasle accommodation

It will be a campuswide campaign for refunds though! Will be fun at the very least.

Zizzi · Post by **Zizzi** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:07 pm

Wait so now is BT the bane of all network problems? Or is it DC? Or wait, is the network 'old'?

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:43 pm

Zizzi wrote:Wait so now is BT the bane of all network problems? Or is it DC? Or wait, is the network 'old'?

BT amounts to 35% of total worldwide internet traffic. Of course it's a bane to all networks. Companies like cisco etc etc spend millions attempting to combat it. Its defuncted several networking models worldwide and has forced ISP's to rethink the issues of contention etc etc.

Now talking about resnet: naturally its not the ONLY problem, and I'm not saying it is the major problem; but the fact remains it would account for a minimum of 35% of extra bandwidth if allowed. With the new setup of subnets etc it becomes even more critical. Yes the network did and does have problems. The bandwidth was too low to deal with the percentage of students who have computers, and they are struggling to cope. BT is only gonna make it worse innit?

Please don't hold me responsible for the network state incidentally. I'm just trying to explain some posible reasons behind the decisions.

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:45 pm

its probably a combination of them all and the fact that ITS actually cant really sort theses problems out as they are "short staffed" as god said. they will eventually get sorted but they are probably going to take longer then usual and as for refuns it cant be one rule for one person. if they refund one they will have to refund everyone else there will be a uprise

MASS PROTEST!!!

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:50 pm

CrAzYfOoL wrote:its probably a combination of them all and the fact that ITS actually cant really sort theses problems out as they are "short staffed" as god said. they will eventually get sorted but they are probably going to take longer then usual

I didn't say short staffed I believe.

ITS only took over managing resnet from an external company (contractor) about a month ago. They are short timed and new to it. [before now they only managed the university network whilst the contractor managed resnet] However they've increased the pipe by 100% and seem to actually be working on it now so i'm optimistic.

and as for refuns it cant be one rule for one person. if they refund one they will have to refund everyone else there will be a uprise MASS PROTEST!!!

That's the general idea

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:44 pm

well short timed means they aint got enought staff to work out the problems

you have raised some wkd point we can all bring up next meeting btw GOD are you going to this focus group meeting ?

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:57 pm

you've got me there.

perhaps you could raise the point of having more engineers at the focus group?

I've not been to the focus groups in the past, but only due to the fact that I'm in contact with staff/engineers anyway and can make my points known.

Also it is bloody early.... 1pm

I'm still asleep at that time often

Zizzi · Post by **Zizzi** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:05 pm

Simple calculations

bandwidth = 8oMbits = 80000Kbits

# on resnet approx 6000 people

Therefore:

Bandwidth per user:

80000/6000 = 13.333Kbits per user!

God · Post by **God** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:14 pm

zizzi your displaying a clear misunderstanding of networking here. please look up network contention etc.

Resnet also doesnt have 6000 IP addresses... hence the DHCP...

very simply the standard isp network model gives a contention ratio.

eg if your on 2mb dsl at 50:1 contention thats actually 2mb shared between 50 users... resnet does exactly the same as per industry standard.

Zizzi · Post by **Zizzi** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:54 pm

Oh! Sorry god, I am international student - didnt realise about contention.

But! Say
2mbit = 2000Kbit
If contention ratio is 1:50 (as per ur last post)

2000/50 = 40Kbits per user worst case scenario

Therefore, for Resnet...

If there are 6000 users, then total bandwidth required (as per ratio of 1:50)

6000 x 40 = 240,000Kbits.

That means in order to follow industry standards, resnet should be having at its disposal

240000/1000 = 240Mbits divided among 6000 people.

My point is 80Mbits is not enough at all, so ITS better stop blaming other things for network performance.

Thats all

And god, i am not going off on you as an individual, rather at ITS.
So no offence meant.

Zizzi

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:34 pm

God I am very impressed with ur insight. No need to excuse urself "for not being up to speed technically" cus u seem to be very up to speed.. Contention is a very good point to make also Zizzi 50:1 contention could also be on a 512 or 1Mbit and be industry standard for a "high speed internet connection" as promised by ITS.. and probably u should take the slowest of the "normal high speed" internet connections as that is the minimum that ITS should provide.. That they have not been providing well over the past months as connections have been well below 10kb/s for certain users..

God it seems good to hear that ITS are workin hard on the problem.. hopefully they'll get the network up to speed.. But concerning other uni's having a stricter network.. I wouldnt really agree.. Yes I kno Oxford is far worse.. but a lot of other uni's are unrestricted..

OH and as a side note I'd like to Restate the point I've made so many times "BT is a whore.. its destroys networks worldwide.. n tho I do occassionally use it I'm not a supporter." - I think ITS should should allow DC++ on-campus hub and keep strict ban on BT.. all on-campus users should stop trying to use BT.. and if they had an on-campus hub they probably would be far more likely to.. and also stop a lot of other external traffic!!

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:37 pm

i agree The BitTorrent network protocol is designed to support large numbers of simultaenous uploads and downloads over the net at the same time, this is why upload is proportional to download etc. This means its very Bandwidth hungry and will grab as much as it can to function this is why its bad for the network

Post by **cocodude** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:47 am

echelon wrote:OH and as a side note I'd like to Restate the point I've made so many times "BT is a whore.. its destroys networks worldwide.. n tho I do occassionally use it I'm not a supporter." - I think ITS should should allow DC++ on-campus hub and keep strict ban on BT

I think they had it right two years ago. During the day, when bandwidth was saturated, BT was totally unusable during the day. When there was spare bandwidth available during the night, decent BT connections could be made. This setup sounds ideal as it gives priority to non-p2p protocols but doesn't simply block then (I mean, there'll essentially be bandwidth going to waste during the night). This worked before, so why don't they simply go back to it again.

Cocodude

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:03 am

2 years ago it was handled by an external company im pritty sure, since ITS have got their grubby little fingers on it they cant seem to get it right. That would be the perfect solution coco, but then surely the uni would be seen as allowing p2p as they would have to open certain ports etc to allow BT to function properly ?

Post by **BigG** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:48 pm

A lot of the problems will be caused by people attempting to use BT. It can kill a network when it's only downloading at at about 3kbps - lots of people fail to understand this :\