Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
FYI, that is NOT how things worked with my Cobalt CacheRAQ. It was
amazing how quickly things snapped up on the page with it vs. without
it. Too bad it was an older unit and I could only use it by changing
the gateway addresses. And it had heat related lockup issues in the
summer.
I'd love to put another one in. It was money very well spent.
Funny how fast time goes by, now that you mentioned it, We had a
cacheRAQ as well.
You know Akamai is also an option. As I recall they require you to have
x number of subs and then send you their boxes to be set up on your
network. All free.
For your final solution on how do you allow subs to download more bits
and not raise your upstream cost, the solution is all pretty simple with
what you have in place right now.
You mentioned that Butch was your guy.
Seeing Butch is your guy, I am assuming you have a MT box at your noc.
Best solution is to do some bandwidth rules limiting your netowrk to
never go more than x megs and to make your users burst or fall back.
I would still consider a caching server to handle the videos just the
same. That ought to shave something.
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
