Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:35341 comp.sys.intel:32929 comp.unix.bsd:16344 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8255 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9405 comp.unix.misc:16335 comp.os.linux.development:23961 comp.os.linux.misc:36359 comp.os.386bsd.development:3292 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5586 comp.os.misc:3882
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!fonorola!achilles!achilles!not-for-mail
From: pjlahaie@achilles.net (Paul JY Lahaie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: flat rates for Internet/phone (Re: X on dial-in)
Date: 8 Mar 1995 11:22:30 -0500
Organization: Achilles Internet Limited, Nepean, ON
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3jklk6$2s6@zeus.achilles.net>
References: <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D4oJtF.43L@pe1chl.ampr.org> <3jaca9$pj@zeus.achilles.net> <3jfqpv$nhd@earth.laitram.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.achilles.net
In article <3jfqpv$nhd@earth.laitram.com>,
Mark Sutton <marksu@laitram.com> wrote:
>I really think that if you expect ANY device to live up to such criteria
>you will be sorely disappointed.
I've run my Pentium *IX box into the ground. When it can't take it
anymore, it stops creating processes, kills off some that are really causing
it grief, and recovers. My MB didn't melt. Neither did my CPU. When our
28.8Kbps modem is running 24hrs/day, and pumping data at 2-3K/sec everyday,
we don't expect it to have a meltdown because the data pump was being use
too much!
>Although, a typical 486 or Pentium computer running *IX might have hundreds of
>user accounts, I would not expect it to perform acceptably with 500 users logged
>in simultaneously, all running CPU intensive apps.
Perhaps it wouldn't perform acceptably, but it would perform. I doubt
the machine would physically break because of this.
>Similarly, when the "typical" usage of a telephone switch might be 3 to 5
>percent, it would be economically ridiculous to design the switch to run
>at 100% capacity 100% of the time. This would surely result in no one
>being able to afford telephone service!
Then it should physically fail? Perhaps it should just terminate a few
of the calls, and cool-down. After all, the phone company doesn't guaranty
your call will last the entire time. That is acceptable. If the switch
melts down, that is not acceptable, under ANY circumstances.
--
Paul JY Lahaie Internet: pjlahaie@achilles.net
Achilles Internet
Director of Technical Operations