> > You are correct and with BITS2.0 or really any version of BITS which any > updated system should have BITS2.0 it will use only the available > bandwidth given. So say you are using 70% of your bandwidth, BITS on XP > will only use the other 30%. So Bandwidth should not be an issue, but > what I have noticed with WSUS is multiple clients connecting to the > server will drive cpu utilization up only in peak form though like on > initial connection. For us this is one service that was not built > redundant because if for some reason like maintenance and our server is > down the clients will then failover to Micro$ofts servers to get them > directly. >
I can't, and don't, speak for Sean, but I think he meant carrier side. I didn't know WSUS was a local update server, but I do now. I think in terms of Internet operations it's irrelevant how a WSUS is fairing since that is completely under the control of the person operating it i.e. get more memory, disk, or allocate more b/w if you have too .. and it's that important. MS did the right thing and made it free after all. I cant see that anyone is seeing anything other than the "same o". MS patches all the time and has a lot of experience in capacity management so I would think that they would've said something if it was to be different than other patches. I've been monitoring IX stats and I am not seeing much including small anomalies. In one of the European IX's I saw what looked like the botnet itself operating. There was a delta on the patch release and the anomaly dropped, but I can't confirm it was related to the worm. Speculation, but a fair one. I didn't contact the IX since it dropped off and don't plan to. I think that this is just another day on the Internet. Unfortunately. -M<