> Let's say we're really good, grab bpmtools, code it in PERL and get it
> written in 15 minutes...
>
> > Don't know about you folks but I wouldn't want to put that kind of demand
> > on my hard drives.
>
> Who said anything about writing data files? And running a job every 15
> minutes is not exactly "that kind of demand" on a PC running Unix.
Actually, consider the mechanics. That program is going to have to have
some type of database from which to operate off of. Do you load it into
memory or do you access the data file? There are advantages to using a
daemon and load it into memory but eventually you'll run into sitiuations
where memory is tight. A good example is run xwindows under any type of
pc unix or linux. Terrific drain on system resources after awhile of
operation. Then run xwindows while running a web server or mail server
while running your perl interpreter and loading in a large database. Some
people here have 20,000 customrs or so as their postings indicate. Heavy
usage will dictate extreme drain on resources. Fact of life.
> Same as above, one little PERL daemon that runs at boot and wakes every
> 15 minutes, scans the portmasters, and kicks off duplicates. I do exactly
> this, the load it adds to the Unix system and portmasters is unnoticable.
>
> > constant is the demand on system resources. And that ladies...is the crux
> > of the problem. How much demand on system resources needs to exist?
>
> PERL is fine if you do all the startup and interpretation once (at system boot)
> One MB of RAM and a few cycles four times an hour is not exactly a big load.
Here again, consider what other uses the machine does. We run two bsdi
boxes which we do graphic work from under xwindows. One machine is at 28
meg the other is at 32 meg. There have been times I've gotten core dumps
because two many things were happening at once. I haver a customer base
of less than 700. If I'm putting that much of a drain on resources with
less than 700 customers what happens if I hit the holy grail and reach
20,000 like some others? I can't just keep loading things into memory and
hope for the best. My system needs to be up 24/7 like most people here
and worrying about memory crashes is something I really don't need.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The PORTMASTER is _NOT_ "tacking on about 135 ms thru routing of traffic",
> 99.9% of the lag is due to the modem and asynchronous serial port. If the
> portmaster had to check who is one, it would only do so at login, and
> might add a second to the time it takes to initially log in, but would
> CAUSE NO ADDITIONAL DELAY ON ESTABLISHED CIRCUITS.
Then how do you explain cisco terminal servers get ping times of around
50 or 60 ms? I used to work for another isp before I started my own and
had access to cisco products. And a year ago 486 66's to 486100's with
28.8's were the dominant computers in our area. Now we have pentium 133's
with 33.6's being the dominant platform. Ideally this should mean faster
response times. So tell me, I really am curious, how can cisco terminal
servers have a faster ping time when by your reckoning they should be the
same? After all it is an asynchronous serial port and there is a modem...
> CPU time is cheap, human time spent on billing (and collecting) is not,
> as I tell the users, I'd rather have the resources available for another
> user than the extra couple of bucks from the abuser who logs in twice.
>
Charge 'em double. works all the time....
>>
> There is _zero_ reason to believe that tracking multipole logins would
> have _any_ affect on latency. If it's done pro-actively at login, it
> might take them a little longer to log in, and it's hard to prevent kicking off
> a user who doesn't deserve it (due to missing accounting packets, etc).
Check your stats again my friend... there are only two places to track
multiple logins, server side or the portmaster. If the portmaster does it
it will have to have database of some kind for those who are allowed and
those who arent' to have multiple logins. Since the portmaster will dump
customers at around 160 unless you expand the memory or go to server side
validation You're talking about some hardware and software modifications
to the portmaster. Great idea for new customers lousy for old customers.
Implementng a scanner on any typew of platform is just going to take
resources no ifs ands or bullshit about it.
>
> Let's see- a free Unix-like OS on a $900 P133, about two hours to set it up,
> if you consider the savings of freeing up a phone line or getting a customer
> who shares his account to cough up the payment for a second account, it
> should pay for itself in under a year.
Not necessaarily. At 900$ for a pc running linux you most likely left out
the monitor. So now you have a linux box just setting there. Could be a
web server or a mail server or an ftp server or any combination of the
above... but if you're a full service isp you need a graphical
environment to work n web pages or other projects. Unix/linux is great
for multitasking and if you don't take advantage of tha6t you're wasting
money in the long run.
>
> The "cost in labor" and hardware is, IMHO, justified by keeping users from
> sharing accounts and hogging ports, catching compromised passwords, and
> having actual port-utilization statistics.
If you offer metered service you accomplish the same thing.
Rob
Robert Hiltibidal Tek Frontiers
Tek Frontiers "Explore the possibilities.."
System Admin <http://www.tekfront.com>
morgan@tekfront.com (217)-241-5112
"People justify their computer for
business and education, but they
use their computer for FUN. " - Alex St John