Pathetic excuse. - Page 2

dev · 14-09-2008, 17:04

none of those forums have any evidence in the first page of topics, try again.

Gary L · 14-09-2008, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

I just see links to forums, not threads with evidence.

The top 2 are Virgin internal news groups.
Any chance of supporting evidence to back up your claim?

---------- Post added at 16:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:11 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev

none of those forums have any evidence in the first page of topics, try again.

Yes, try the next button, or the button with number 2 or 3.

Jonathan90 · 14-09-2008, 17:13

no offence gary l but install bw meter or some other monitor tool if you do get capped/stm and the monitor says different then you got evidence simple as without evidence this thread is pointless

r00t · 14-09-2008, 17:14

I'm in the groups now, I see 2 requests for STM time. No evidence of the trigger being incorrect.

One guy even asks

Quote:

Why cant the system auto email out the fact you have been STM rather than post here?
--
Kevin R
Reply address works

DU meter for the win..

dev · 14-09-2008, 17:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Yes, try the next button, or the button with number 2 or 3.

but you said 'day in day out' so if it happens daily, surely 2 or 3 days worth of topics on a couple of forums would be plenty? or is it not happening at all?

Gary L · 14-09-2008, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan90

no offence gary l but install bw meter or some other monitor tool if you do get capped/stm and the monitor says different then you got evidence simple as without evidence this thread is pointless

Hope this helps explain my posting more clearly.

could you tell me what time I was STM'd please.

We are unable to perform this check anymore as it has been requested that we
do not place unnecessary load on the servers. We may be able to advise of
this again in the future once new systems are in place to combat the server
loads. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Your kidding right?, sending a very small data request may use about 3 to 5k, you could send hundreds and cause very little load on the
servers, someone pulling your leg.

You've gota be joking ??

Alex Brown keeps insisting STM works as "described on the tin" and
there are "no capacity issues" yet now VM are insisting that yet
another "important feature" cannot be verified as working correctly or
not due the extra load your few requests per day put on the servers".

Yet ever more users are being added to open tickets where there are
STM issues being outside the published hours, will these be swept
under the carpet like so many other service issues which affect paying
customers ??

This leaves paying customers totally unable to tell if any speed
issues are due to triggering STM or any other connection issues.

Highly suspect move....
it would not be unreasonable to suggest this moves only intent is to make it
un-nessasarly difficult for people to check for incorrect STM.
Something we all know is happening far too much and often with no
resolution.

very very poor move indeed.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

I'm in the groups now, I see 2 requests for STM time. No evidence of the trigger being incorrect.

Are you aware of STM being incorrect on certain UBRs at anytime whilst an employee of VM?

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dev

but you said 'day in day out'

So did Gary_the_Troll

r00t · 14-09-2008, 17:28

Quote:

So did r00t

Thats right Gary, I see claims, not evidence.
Show me/us the evidence.

14-09-2008, 17:29

Gary L bashes thread YAY seriously Gary your a typical customer that doesnt listen unless its something that you want to hear, just download DU meter.

Gary L · 14-09-2008, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by darthlinux

Gary L bashes thread YAY seriously Gary your a typical customer that doesnt listen unless its something that you want to hear, just download DU meter.

I already have DU meter. I will download it again if it makes the thread go back on topic.

Ignitionnet · 14-09-2008, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

Wrong again Gary. The command used to query the uBR to give you the start and end time of STM puts load on the uBR.
Go download netlimiter or some other such tool.

Is there not enough CPU spare on the uBRs to cope with this command being run here and there?

I'm sure that plenty of CPU would be freed up on them by turning STM off

BenMcr · 14-09-2008, 17:46

Virgin can't just do it 'here and there'.

Just as they can't just answer bill queries 'here and there'

They either have to offer the service to all customers or to none of them

cook1984 · 14-09-2008, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

The command used to query the uBR to give you the start and end time of STM puts load on the uBR.

That really is a pathetic excuse. The amount of load generated by one query is tiny and lasts for a fraction of a second. In fact most network hardware supports constant monitoring by SNMP anyway. Either they bought the lamest UBRs in the world EVAR or their are just making a pathetic excuse.

Ignitionnet · 14-09-2008, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

I'm in the groups now, I see 2 requests for STM time. No evidence of the trigger being incorrect.

One guy even asks

DU meter for the win..

VM's OSS team not being idle bstards and giving us a web interface so that we can see how much we've used for the win..

Then there's the issue of multiple people using say the VM supplied router. Not sure why they should have to start messing with MRTG / PRTG because VM are too cheap to ensure their network has adequate capacity

Actually that's probably a bad idea if the CMTSes alledgedly can't even handle the load of a couple of queries, heaven knows what having to report utilisation stats per modem would do to them.

Shambolic, and while you might find your pithy comment funny I don't. It typifies the attitude of some of VM to customers, from pretty senior management down.

r00t · 14-09-2008, 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by cook1984

That really is a pathetic excuse. The amount of load generated by one query is tiny and lasts for a fraction of a second. In fact most network hardware supports constant monitoring by SNMP anyway. Either they bought the lamest UBRs in the world EVAR or their are just making a pathetic excuse.

As with Gary. Show us your proof.

/me un-subscribes from thread until someone posts something more than just thin air.

Ignitionnet · 14-09-2008, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by cook1984

That really is a pathetic excuse. The amount of load generated by one query is tiny and lasts for a fraction of a second. In fact most network hardware supports constant monitoring by SNMP anyway. Either they bought the lamest UBRs in the world EVAR or their are just making a pathetic excuse.

Or they haven't upgraded the CPUs on the kit and it's struggling both with all the extra customers they've been packing on each one thanks to the capacity they've saved with STM, and thanks to having to run STM.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t

As with Gary. Show us your proof.

/me un-subscribes from thread until someone posts something more than just thin air.

As with your constant requests for proof, show me a show proc cpu history output from one of these alledgedly under strain uBRs.

You're the one who said they couldn't be queried as it puts stress on them.

Evidently you have none either, beyond rote repeating of what you were told.