I have Cable and at first i had a 1.5 Mbps connection. Then they doubled it so i was curious to check out how much better my bandwidth had gotten so i took a test and it had like 196k upload and 1200 download were my best results. When i asked my ISP comcast why i wasnt getting 3 Mbps they said that the bandwidth test was inaccurate because if i did 8 tests at the same time they would be all about the same upload/download. So my "cap" i am assuming is 3Mbps but only when i have a whole lot of action going on like 25 downloads and 5 uploads at the same time. So why cant my server for steam work any faster!!!!!! it sucks. I dont like how comcast does that, i want 3 apples for each download! and an accurate max upload all the time. Oh pity me! I know cable is faster than DSL but is it faster than a T1 T2 or T3 line? And any advice to what i can do with my Server. I dont see why i need more than 1.1 ghz AMD duron, 768 MB DDR. Im low budget. If thats my problem go ahead and laugh. Not like i can hear you! Sincerely, POTHEADshotyou Paul
> Send hlds mailing list submissions to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of hlds digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (David Fencik) > 2. RE: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (Rob Harwood) > 3. Re: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?=) > 4. RE: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (Napier, Kevin) > 5. RE: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (Rob Harwood) > 6. Re: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (m0gely) > 7. RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization (Marshal Mannerheim) > 8. Re: Hlds_proc Beta 2 (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?=) > 9. RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization (David Fencik) > 10. Re: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization (Shane Robinett) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > From: "David Fencik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:35:55 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I second that. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HLDS List > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > Rob, > You, sir, are now officially 'da man!' > I haven't tried the Steam updater, but the Web Interface is great! > > Now for what's sure to add to your long to-do list: > How about some functionality that allows certain users to start/stop > servers without giving them access to the configs? > This could be a per-user/server kind of deal or an all-user/all-server > setup. > > I trust my top admins to start and stop servers, but I don't want to > give > them the opportunity to muck around in the configs. > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:22:30 +0100 > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Beta3 will have, among other improvements, a permissions system for the > web interface where you can define usernames and passwords, each user > can have access to different servers, and I will include a couple of > levels of access, like "stop/start", "change config", "view logs" etc. > > I'm also experimenting with installshield to see if I can improve the > setup procedure somewhat. > > - Rob. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > Sent: 13 May 2004 15:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > I second that. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HLDS List > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > Rob, > You, sir, are now officially 'da man!' > I haven't tried the Steam updater, but the Web Interface is great! > > Now for what's sure to add to your long to-do list: > How about some functionality that allows certain users to start/stop > servers without giving them access to the configs? > This could be a per-user/server kind of deal or an all-user/all-server > setup. > > I trust my top admins to start and stop servers, but I don't want to > give > them the opportunity to muck around in the configs. > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 3 > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 18:08:54 +0200 > Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6m's_Bowlingshop?= > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > How about a "Real-time" priority setting? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:22 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > Beta3 will have, among other improvements, a permissions system for the > > web interface where you can define usernames and passwords, each user > > can have access to different servers, and I will include a couple of > > levels of access, like "stop/start", "change config", "view logs" etc. > > > > I'm also experimenting with installshield to see if I can improve the > > setup procedure somewhat. > > > > - Rob. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > > Sent: 13 May 2004 15:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > I second that. > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HLDS List > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > Rob, > > You, sir, are now officially 'da man!' > > I haven't tried the Steam updater, but the Web Interface is great! > > > > Now for what's sure to add to your long to-do list: > > How about some functionality that allows certain users to start/stop > > servers without giving them access to the configs? > > This could be a per-user/server kind of deal or an all-user/all-server > > setup. > > > > I trust my top admins to start and stop servers, but I don't want to > > give > > them the opportunity to muck around in the configs. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 4 > From: "Napier, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 12:16:32 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Can be dangerous and you should not be using that for hlds. > > (though above_normal, and below_normal) whould be nice additions to > normal,low,and high. > > -Kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Johan Str=F6m [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > How about a "Real-time" priority setting? > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 5 > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:24:14 +0100 > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I thought about this - but does anyone run HLDS as real-time? I thought it = > might cause mucho problems for little gain. If there's a want for it Ill ad= > d it. > > - Rob. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > re.com] On Behalf Of Johan Str=F6m > Sent: 13 May 2004 17:09 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > How about a "Real-time" priority setting? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:22 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > Beta3 will have, among other improvements, a permissions system for the > > web interface where you can define usernames and passwords, each user > > can have access to different servers, and I will include a couple of > > levels of access, like "stop/start", "change config", "view logs" etc. > > > > I'm also experimenting with installshield to see if I can improve the > > setup procedure somewhat. > > > > - Rob. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > > Sent: 13 May 2004 15:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > I second that. > > > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HLDS List > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > Rob, > > You, sir, are now officially 'da man!' > > I haven't tried the Steam updater, but the Web Interface is great! > > > > Now for what's sure to add to your long to-do list: > > How about some functionality that allows certain users to start/stop > > servers without giving them access to the configs? > > This could be a per-user/server kind of deal or an all-user/all-server > > setup. > > > > I trust my top admins to start and stop servers, but I don't want to > > give > > them the opportunity to muck around in the configs. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, plea= > se visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 11:37:21 -0800 > From: m0gely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Rob Harwood wrote: > > > Yeah I know the uninstaller is a piece of crap, but it's the default VS > > one and was easy to get going =) Ill try to change for next release, > > although, there is an uninstall option (in add/remove programs), did > > this fail? > > > > If it complains about service already installed, just kill the registry > > entry in HKLM/SYSTEM/CurrentControlSet/Services > > You know, I tried that first but I still get the error that a service > exists trying to install beta2. The uninstaller in the control panel > failed but that may be becuase I removed the service. At any rate I > havent had much time to mess with figuring out how to get beta2 on my > system. As my main server is FreeBSD I was just giving your app a > tryout on my test server (Win2K3). > > -- > - m0gely > http://quake2.telestream.com/ > Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 7 > From: "Marshal Mannerheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:13:15 -0700 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [ Converted text/html to text/plain ] > > I would agree that 100% utilization of one's bandwidth would equal the uppe= > r > limit of your service. 100% of 1.5 Mb is 1.5 Mb. > > The reason why I started this discussion was that in trouble shooting some > problems with my ISP they gave me the impression that this logic was > incorrect. I was wondering if this was a common term used in > bandwidth/internet discussions which it appears to NOT be. So it seems to b= > e > that my ISP doesn't speak the same language as the rest of us, which does n= > ot > seem far fetched. > > -mm > >From: "[YG]Sharza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:17:22 +0200 > > > > > I just signed a contract at a datacenter in NJ that offered 1Mbit > > > sustained traffic, burstable to 2Mbit. If I was using 2Mbit all the > > > time, then I guess I'd be at 200% utilization, no? > > > >I would still claim that you would then raise your total bandwidth, and th= > en > utilize an amount of > >that. Absolutely speaking, utilization should not be able to go over 100% = > no > matter what we speak of > >(not limited to bandwidth or network). > > > >For a burstable line, you raise your overall bandwidth in a limited period= > of > time. > > > >Relatively speaking you could say that you may be able to reach 200% > utilization, but I don't know > >the word for it in English, I would still not call it utilization, as its > misleading imo. > > > >L8r, > > Sharza > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, ple= > ase > visit: > >http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= > --- > MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page =96 FREE > download![1] > > =3D=3D=3DReferences:=3D=3D=3D > 1. http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2731??PS=3D47575 > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 8 > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:22:42 +0200 > Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6m's_Bowlingshop?= > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I've run a server for about three months with firedeamon according to these > instructions: > http://server.counter-strike.net/forums/showthread.php?s=3D620d3968b2d572b8= > 1ecd4219356d1152&threadid=3D27788 > > and I've never had any problems that I can ascertain from running it in > real-time priority. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 6:24 PM > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > I thought about this - but does anyone run HLDS as real-time? I thought i= > t > might cause mucho problems for little gain. If there's a want for it Ill ad= > d > it. > > > > - Rob. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johan Str=F6m > > Sent: 13 May 2004 17:09 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > How about a "Real-time" priority setting? > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Harwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:22 PM > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > > > > Beta3 will have, among other improvements, a permissions system for the > > > web interface where you can define usernames and passwords, each user > > > can have access to different servers, and I will include a couple of > > > levels of access, like "stop/start", "change config", "view logs" etc. > > > > > > I'm also experimenting with installshield to see if I can improve the > > > setup procedure somewhat. > > > > > > - Rob. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Fencik > > > Sent: 13 May 2004 15:36 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > > > I second that. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HLDS List > > > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:21 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [hlds] Hlds_proc Beta 2 > > > > > > Rob, > > > You, sir, are now officially 'da man!' > > > I haven't tried the Steam updater, but the Web Interface is great! > > > > > > Now for what's sure to add to your long to-do list: > > > How about some functionality that allows certain users to start/stop > > > servers without giving them access to the configs? > > > This could be a per-user/server kind of deal or an all-user/all-serve= > r > > > setup. > > > > > > I trust my top admins to start and stop servers, but I don't want to > > > give > > > them the opportunity to muck around in the configs. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 9 > From: "David Fencik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:30:03 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > As soon as you say the word "cancel" they'll probably start speaking > YOUR language. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshal > Mannerheim > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > > [ Converted text/html to text/plain ] > > I would agree that 100% utilization of one's bandwidth would equal the > upper > limit of your service. 100% of 1.5 Mb is 1.5 Mb. > > The reason why I started this discussion was that in trouble shooting > some > problems with my ISP they gave me the impression that this logic was > incorrect. I was wondering if this was a common term used in > bandwidth/internet discussions which it appears to NOT be. So it seems > to be > that my ISP doesn't speak the same language as the rest of us, which > does not > seem far fetched. > > -mm > >From: "[YG]Sharza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:17:22 +0200 > > > > > I just signed a contract at a datacenter in NJ that offered 1Mbit > > > sustained traffic, burstable to 2Mbit. If I was using 2Mbit all the > > > time, then I guess I'd be at 200% utilization, no? > > > >I would still claim that you would then raise your total bandwidth, and > then > utilize an amount of > >that. Absolutely speaking, utilization should not be able to go over > 100% no > matter what we speak of > >(not limited to bandwidth or network). > > > >For a burstable line, you raise your overall bandwidth in a limited > period of > time. > > > >Relatively speaking you could say that you may be able to reach 200% > utilization, but I don't know > >the word for it in English, I would still not call it utilization, as > its > misleading imo. > > > >L8r, > > Sharza > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please > visit: > >http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------ > MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - > FREE > download![1] > > ===References:=== > 1. http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2731??PS=47575 > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 10 > From: "Shane Robinett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:42:03 -0400 > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > An ISP delivering broadband access at home of limits of 1.5mb versus the 1mb > you buy from a datacenter are vastly different subject areas. > > Technologically, the broadband access (Cable/DSL) is capped at or near the > 1.5mb level (obviously, this differs per individual technology). > > In the case of the datacenter, you are connect to either a 10mb, 100mb, or > 1gb switch. From there, they are connected to vastly larger pipes for data > delivery. The "1mb" you buy from the datacenter is just like buying 1 apple. > You can reach into the barrel and buy damn near as many apples as you want. > > They are putting a cap of 2mb on your pipe (an artificial cap). This is to > protect you and their other clients from over saturation of the pipe. They > probably have 100 clients at 1mb with 2mb caps on the same switched network, > with the expectations that at any point in time their will be available > load. But just in case, they cap you at 2mb so you can't take too much of > it. > > Other datacenters treat this differently. In our case, we are capped by the > rate of the switch (100mb) with packetshaping occuring at that level for > routing, etc purposes. In reality, we only purchase 1/2 of that amount.. > BUT.. can burst (and can be charged for) the higher rates if we need it in a > pinch. > > - > > Hope that helps? > > Shane > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marshal Mannerheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 4:13 PM > Subject: RE: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > > > [ Converted text/html to text/plain ] > > I would agree that 100% utilization of one's bandwidth would equal the upper > limit of your service. 100% of 1.5 Mb is 1.5 Mb. > > The reason why I started this discussion was that in trouble shooting some > problems with my ISP they gave me the impression that this logic was > incorrect. I was wondering if this was a common term used in > bandwidth/internet discussions which it appears to NOT be. So it seems to be > that my ISP doesn't speak the same language as the rest of us, which does > not > seem far fetched. > > -mm > >From: "[YG]Sharza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: SV: SV: SV: [hlds] ot - bandwidth vs utilization > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:17:22 +0200 > > > > > I just signed a contract at a datacenter in NJ that offered 1Mbit > > > sustained traffic, burstable to 2Mbit. If I was using 2Mbit all the > > > time, then I guess I'd be at 200% utilization, no? > > > >I would still claim that you would then raise your total bandwidth, and > then > utilize an amount of > >that. Absolutely speaking, utilization should not be able to go over 100% > no > matter what we speak of > >(not limited to bandwidth or network). > > > >For a burstable line, you raise your overall bandwidth in a limited period > of > time. > > > >Relatively speaking you could say that you may be able to reach 200% > utilization, but I don't know > >the word for it in English, I would still not call it utilization, as its > misleading imo. > > > >L8r, > > Sharza > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please > visit: > >http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page - FREE > download![1] > > ===References:=== > 1. http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2731??PS=47575 > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > End of hlds Digest _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
