Quote:
Originally Posted by roughbeast
Now that's a question I always wanted the answer to Chrysalis. I wonder if Ignition has the answer. 
Did I do good?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
However I think I understand Ignition's response better than your follow-up question. To me a key point is that it is inevitable that 1 out of 10 people on a 10Mb pipe will at some point use up 10% (1mb) of the capacity. It must happen all the time! To use up 10% (10Mb) of a 100Mb pipe with a 100 users in it is more difficult. It requires 10 of those 100 users to be simultaneously using 1Mb of capacity. That will probably happen quite often, but not inevitably. For the other 90 users to be using the other 90Mb simultaneously is very unlikely, much less likely than the other 9 users using the remaining 9mb of a 10Mb pipe.
You asserted that Ignition said that smaller nodes were better. I didn't catch him saying that in this context so I don't know if he is being contradictory.
Your question about merging 4 segments so more customers have more space sounds sensible. 10 users within 8x18Mb channels sounds less advantageous than 40 using 32x18Mb channels.
I bet there is an engineering obstacle to this. I can't believe it hasn't occurred to VM.
BTW the 10 or so 200Mb trialists in Coventry were on a 1Gb pipe. A 10Gb pipe was held in reserve, but was never needed. |
Well he said they had too many users per segment, so by that I assume he means the node sizes need to be reduced as realistically the only way to reduce the users is either to move some to another segment, or split the node into smaller nodes. If there is a 3rd way someone is welcome to tell me.
So the way I see it if VM are to reduce node sizes in an attempt to support higher speeds then its logical to have those nodes still as one but with the extra capacity instead.
Do you agree its less probable to have 4 200mbit users active at once on a 800mbit pipe than it is 2 200mbit users on a 400mbit pipe?