On 06/15/2015 07:30 PM, Bill Horne wrote: > I want to rely on your best judgement, and not have to concern myself with > it. If you're filling 45% of the pipe and my machine has a usage surge that > raises it to 85%, I like to think you'll take steps to make sure everybody > else still has enough headroom to keep going, while keeping my machine in > service.
Yes, at minimum we should rate limit an individual guest to less than what a single server can support. We should specify what that rate is publicly. > I'm just a newsgroup moderator with a virtual server for personal emails, > website testing, and an occasional blog post. I doubt my machine represents > 0.01% of your average load. BUT - if the Telecom Digest is mentioned on MSNBC > and I see a sudden upsurge in hits, I don't want to have to worry about > getting hit with a big usage surcharge: I'd rather be able to depend on your > team to make good decisions. > You're doing a good job. Why fix what isn't broken? We're pretty sure the low advertised limits are hurting us significantly, and those need to change, but not having public limits at all could get ugly. 1TB of data per month is less than 5mbps on average. I think what Luke is suggesting is a model like t-mobiles USA "unlimited" plans where you get some amount of high-rate data but after this you may be limited to a much lower rate. --Sarah _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.prgmr.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
