How Qwest Runs Things 83
Brew Bird writes "Qwest explains how they handle the various issues that crop up being a large ISP/Backbone Provider.
They've got the presentations setup in a nice little website." It's very *BSD focused, since I believe that's mostly what Qwest runs but the presentations are interesting in the scaling issue - what do you do with that much data and that many machines?
Pavlovian PowerPoint (Score:1)
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:1)
And they only offered MS-Windows tools and instructions for the latest update which they required for my DSL router.
This is so typical of slashdot! (Score:1)
For one thing, someone posted the netcraft readings on qwest.com. The slides are all discussing qwest.net.
"The site www.qwest.net runs Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 OpenSSL/0.9.2b on FreeBSD"
The slides also clearly state that they run their DNS, email, and web servers on FreeBSD. Anything you may have heard from former Qwest employees may refer to pre-merger Qwest. The qwest.net that the slides discuss was previously uswest.net. Some of Qwest's presentations were done last year at BSDCon, only as uswest.net.
Finally, what do your difficulties with fiber optic circuits, customer service, or the time it takes to get your DSL line connected have to do with the OS running on the servers? With all the posts bitching about qwest, I have yet to see one that says "their mail servers, DNS servers, and/or web servers are unreliable," and since that's what the slides were discussing, I have to assume you just wanted something to complain about.
But I'm sure you'll ignore this post, just as you've ignored the slides themselves, so you can just go back to talking about how they should be using Linux instead.
first-hand info (Score:2)
They may run FreeBSD for some stuff, but you aren't going to scale for extremely high transaction rates on Intel/FreeBSD boxes.
No knock on FreeBSD (I run it myself), but just the way it is.
Re:Why just one BSD? (Score:1)
Also, NetBSD has had an improved VM system for some time now. I think it's the default on i386, but I can't say for certain.
-Dom
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Why FreeBSD? (Score:1)
It's also obvious according performance testing [innominate.org] stuff of last year that FreeBSD way outperforms OpenBSD.
The only unix I run at home is an OpenBSD machine. I also have a single OpenBSD co-locate (personal server) at my work. Let me count the ways of the pain dealing with webserving on that thing.. PHP / MySQL problems, etc. It's not bad that because it's only a single machine, but if I had to run 50 of these things, I would switch to FreeBSD in a heart beat.
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:2)
My own second-hand info (Score:1)
Just my anecdotal evidence.
Qwest DSL (Score:1)
One good note, I originally got DSL at 256Kb/s. This past summer, I noticed higher (almost double) download speeds. A couple weeks later, I got a letter saying they'd upgraded my line to 640Kb/s download (still 256Kb/s uploads), at no extra charge!
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
And, isn't TUX the kernel level webserver, if i'm not mistaken? So, on equally configured systems, the kernel managed to dish out 200 more pages than Win2000/IIS5, even though Win2000 also has the overhead of a full GUI as well?
Benchmarks are far from conclusive, especially when you point to one in particluar and proclaim the winner of that one the best overall.
Funny though, i think i just responded to a troll...
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:1)
I ended up needing to install Win98 on my machine just so that they could actually be sure that everything was setup fine on my end, and that the issue indeed was that they hadn't updated the entry for my MAC address in their systems. But in the end,they couldn't care less what you run, according to my experience.
Same for my linksys router. They don't care. They'll only charge you more for additional computers if your extra computers are using their IP addresses.
The only time that you're required to run Windows or Mac is if you need their help setting your machine up.
My experience, at least.
Re:bye bye BSD (Score:1)
--Um... Lucas
(posting logged in. fuck karma.)
BSD posting tips for trolls and karma whores (Score:1)
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:2)
Of course, if you're stuck with an actively non-Windows-hostile ISP like Roadrunner or Ma Belle (that's Bellsouth for the non-Southern among us), I feel sorry for you... and wish you the best of luck finding a new ISP.
warp eight bot
geek by nature
Free Software by choice
distro bigotry is for losers
Re:Qwest my be *BSD, but they still mess up royal. (Score:3)
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Float your boat (Score:2)
Any one running those applications on any OS would have the same problem. The FreeBSD Project is just being responsible.
The advisories have a paragraph that makes this very clear.
Please stop your FUD.
--
ISP division of Qwest (Re:second-hand info) (Score:2)
Your second-hand info regarding Solaris/Oracle may well be true for the rest of Qwest.
--
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:2)
And good for Linux! It _is_ possible to speak well of one OS without speaking poorly of another.
--
They might use BSD inside, but (Score:1)
Uptimes [was Re:Interesting Articles] (Score:1)
Unless it's a kernel issue there's no reason why they should have to reboot. One of the nice things about unix is that you can fix/replace/change parts of the system without affecting others. If they're going to update their popd why is that grounds for a reboot? Move the old binary, stick in the new and restart the daemon.
Re:Spam (Score:2)
I find it strange that among a couple hundred comments only one AC mentions Qwest's well-established reputation as a spamhaus.
They host spammers and spamvertized websites. They won't remove their spammers no matter how much you complain.
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
Linux may not be groundbreaking (although some things in the open source world are IMHO) but it's nice and I like it and I use it and I'm grateful.
It's not freeloading to use things given to you with an open heart. It's why it's there.
I don't tell my plumber to work for free but if he volunteered to work for free I would not berate him or call him a communist. I have helped many people and may people have helped me in my life somehow it never occured to me to call those people communist, anarchists, or hypocrites. I usually said good things about them and thanked them profusely and usually said something like "if there is anything I can do for you please don't hesitate to ask".
I guess you and me are different in that way. You see someone committing an act of generosity and you lash out at them and call them names. Me I admire them and try to emulate them.
BTW. I charge my clients, wave the free software flag, use free software and write some inconsequencial code that I give away to anybody who asks for it. To me these are not contradictory actions. I don't see life in the same black and white terms that you do. I guess I am able to recognize subleties in the fabric of life, society and economy.
BTW communism is a political affliation. As far as I know it's an extreme minority of the US. The chances of a poster actually being a communist is pretty damned small. Like most people they are either republican, democrat or independent.
Re:They might use BSD inside, but (Score:1)
--GnrcMan--
Usenet Porn Primer! (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:3)
Until Qwest disconnects Alan Ralsky and his spam front Telodigm) (you know, those spams you've been getting from spewspew.net dialups pumping www.gatheredsales.net, www.linkusnow.net and now www.speedquality.org), I don't have any fucking interest in how Qwest runs things.
Because the evidence about how Qwest runs things is in my inbox every goddamn morning.
Fuck Qwest.
And for those reading in nanae, until MAPS gets off its ass and RBLs the whole goddamn 216.144.192.0-216.144.223.255 Qwest/Telodigm netspace, hey, fuck MAPS too.
I know what they could do with it... (Score:1)
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Stop that lie allready
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Compare the code, but I'll guess it would be too much to ask from an illerate BSD wimps
Re:second-hand info (Score:2)
The changes between 4.1 and 4.2 were hardly affected by BSDi. It was the same 'ol, same 'ol- bugfixes, a couple new features, and general improvements.
You won't see much from the BSD/OS code that was released to FreeBSD developers until, maybe 5.0. SMPng is BSD/OS "inspired" but their design does vary significantly from BSD/OS's.
Re:Why just one BSD? (Score:2)
Because it's the most used.
Yes I know that FreeBSD is great and all, but is it the only one being used for server usage?
Read above. OpenBSD is very reliable, stable, does just about everything FreeBSD does, and more secure than just about anything out there. But the question remains, why just FreeBSD?
More applications, has SMP, and a better VM system for starters.
WHen was the last time you heard some one speak of NetBSD or BSD/OS ...? .. exactly ....
Earlier today. Just because you don't see them on your computer at home doesn't mean its not out there. So I guess Tru64 or AIX are non-existant to you. But does it really matter which BSD is used? So please quit whining.
Re:*BSD too slow -- SPECweb reveals all (Score:2)
Neither is Solaris or Tru64. So whats your point troll?
Re:second-hand info (Score:2)
Most operations are a Solaris/Oracle core. Yahoo! uses FreeBSD for its kr4d pure serving ability but for the number crunching they run Solaris.
Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.
The 4.1 -> 4.2 releases were just routine bugfixes, minor tweaks, etc. The average user won't reap any benefits of the merger until SMPng is completed. Ahhh threading!
Nothing of any magnitude in your comments. We all know x86 hardware is nasty, etc.
Re:*BSD is dying (Score:1)
And maybe they don't have to ask questions on USENET. Don't judge these people by the Linux users, many of them have been Unix people, literally, since before many Linux users were born.
Internal vs. External Use (Score:2)
Excellent timing on the article, as I am getting ready to switch ISPs and was considering these guys. While it's great to know they use a real OS internally, that doesn't necessarily mean they are friendly to customers doing the same (Roadrunner certainly is not, for instance, proclaiming that using Linux is grounds for terminating a customer account according to one would-be customer of theirs I spoke with recently.)
Anyone have any experience using their service with *nix? I know that it's pretty easy to simply do it on your own, without letting the provider know, but I also really don't like doing that, I don't like supporting a provider that even tries to require their customers pay the MS tax.
I've read through their online information and seen nothing sinister, but I'm very interested in hearing from anyone that's using them now, or that was using them recently.
Re:My God, Qwest? Might as well tout Chernobyl (Score:1)
If you had a good ISP, like visi.com for example, you'd know that there was scheduled maintanance today. The 30 minutes went to 90, imagine that.
USWest sucked big time, Qwest sucks the same but pretends to care. I still cannot get DSL in Eagan.
sopwath
Re:second-hand info (Score:2)
I currently work in an environment where most things run on commercial Unix, so here's my perspective on that. First, there are many applications which are sim ply too demanding for the hardware on which Linux will run. Typically this mean s huge Oracle databases. But there are also many instances of people architecting around the 'big iron' just because it's available, rather than seriously asking what the best platform would be. The best example is web servers, which in my opinion should be Linux/FreeBSD on Intel. That combination yields the best bang for the buck. It's much better to load balance a bunch of Intel web servers than to try to build a huge 'high-availability' Sun or HP web server.
Re:use OpenBSD, -- FreeBSD is *NOT* secure (Score:1)
All generalizations are false.
Re:Why just one BSD? (Score:1)
Also, the politics really are an issue... OpenBSD is completely controlled a by one person, a person with a long-standing reputation as being immature and not very personable. OpenBSD is a great OS, but I honestly can't say that it has a future. After every new release, I'm always amazed that Theo hasn't gotten mad at someone, fired all of the core developers, and run off in a huff.
OTOH, FreeBSD is controlled by several core development teams and committees. One developer couldn't destroy the project on a whim. I have confidence in its future stability.
(Also, this is bordering on flamebait, but I guarantee that OpenBSD wouldn't have its reputation for security if it had more users. OpenBSD can afford to be smug, because no one runs the fucking thing! On the flip side, while Red Hat really is crap, it's also the most-run Linux distro in this country, especially if you count th Mandrake users. Therefore, there's a much greater chance of its security being tested.)
All generalizations are false.
Re:first-hand info (Score:1)
All generalizations are false.
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
All generalizations are false.
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:2)
IBM "supports" Linux, but you have to look deeper. They do release code, but since there's $0.00 ROI, it's just charity. The only place that Linux has in business is as a low-cost (ie free) system for running cheap IA hardware. Just look at Cobalt... they pay $0 for the software that runs their Qube, and since they're not a software company, they don't have to give anything back.
As a programmer and software developer, I have absolutely no problem with closed-source. I want to continue working making software (and making pretty good money), and Open Source has no place in that plan. Free Software will always remain free as in beer, because no businessman will pay for what he can get for free. (Or for less. Once again, CheapBytes profits more than anyone from OSS.) The GNU Manifesto gets really fuzzy in this area, alluding to the "programmer" occupation changing into a more janitorial role, making a living by installing and maintaining the software they write for free. Bullshit. I hope I never have to be a professional developer in that world.
And Raymond's propaganda is really, um, interesting. It would be a lot more effective if he weren't a rapid, flute-playing gun nut who lives on his VA and Red Hat stock options.
It's exactly Free Software/OSS zealot's aversion to making money from software that makes me suspicious of their socialist tendencies. UNIX would not exist without capitalism. Linux, the communist alternative which stole its entire arhcitecture from UNIX, hasn't yet proven itself to be any better.
All generalizations are false.
second-hand info (Score:4)
Also, I used to be a BSD nut, so while I think it's cool to hear about its use at such large corporations, understand that 80% or more of it will be BSDi. In several areas FreeBSD technically out-performs BSDi's server products, but BSD has both a corporate reputation and a full-time, in-house support staff. Stories about BSD's success in the enterprise are not "news" and should not be considered good for Free Software.
Last year's BSDi/Walnut Creek merger affected FreeBSD immediately (as I'm sure other BSD users noticed between 4.1 and 4.2), but I'm not yet sure if BSDi's Internet Server OS has been affected.
One thing that many inexperienced Slashdotter's don't seem to know is that while BSD and GNU/Linux are great (even superior, in many cases) for small-medium Intel boxes, there is a point where you really do need the high-end hardware and industrial-strength UNIX that only IBM, Sun, HP, and others currently provide. And it's not just a matter of corporate bullshit... for instance, ask anyone who has ported "real" enterprise software from UNIX to GNU/Linux about the experience and I guarantee that the first they'll do is start bitching about GNU/Linux's lack of a real threading model and other deficiences.
I hope that IBM's support of Linux continues, because that is truly one company whose knowledge and experience can help Linux overcome these issues.
This is getting way offtopic, but I'm going to mention that I think a Linux kernel fork is inevitable within the next five years. One group, led by De Icazza and others, will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of the Windows desktop. The other group, led by IBM, TurboLinux and other corporate interests will concentrate on bringing Linux to the level of UNIX as an enterprise OS running on non-trivial (ie non-IA) hardware.
And ten years from now, after the Linux communities have destroyed each other, BSD will still be running network hardware in machine rooms around the world. :-)
All generalizations are false.
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
A nice change... (Score:3)
-DVK (FP? who cares!)
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:2)
Anything that is derived from capitalism is good, even if it's not.
Anything that is derived from communism is bad, even if it's not.
Working for freedom is zealotry.
Doing whatever it takes for money is not.
--
Why just one BSD? (Score:1)
Yes I know that FreeBSD is great and all, but is it the only one being used for server usage?
What about OpenBSD? I use OpenBSD, and IMHO, its very similar to FreeBSD, if not better.
OpenBSD is very reliable, stable, does just about everything FreeBSD does, and more secure than just about anything out there. But the question remains, why just FreeBSD?
From my point of view, FreeBSD has the RedHat effect. In the world of Linux, when most talk about LInux, they really mean redhat. Same goes for the world of BSD. WHen was the last time you heard some one speak of NetBSD or BSD/OS ...? .. exactly ....
Its always sad, when one flavor of an OS takes the spot light, and the other which are almost as good are forgotten.
Hopefully, the rest of the BSD's will get the credit that they deserver too.
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:2)
Re: *nix and Qwest (Score:1)
If service in your area is anything like mine, make sure to request an "external modem". This comes in the form of a Cisco 675 router. Also, be prepared to be on your own as far as setup and maintenance is concerned. I havn't been particularly impressed with support. (Surprise!) They shipped the manuals for a later version of the BIOS then what was installed on the router. When I asked for a upgrade I got a lot of blank stares.
Also, I sent Qwest the following security notice [cisco.com] about Cisco routers that came out last month. Packet filtering doesn't seem to be included until this later version of the BIOS. As before, blank stares when I tried to get an upgrade. Looks like Cisco will offer free upgrades anyway... Just be prepared to be on your own for support.
Eric
Re:A nice change... (Score:1)
--ricardo
Re:A nice change... (Score:1)
Sorry.
--ricardo
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:2)
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:1)
Re:Why just one BSD? (Score:1)
Re:Why just one BSD? (Score:2)
Qwest my be *BSD, but they still mess up royal. (Score:1)
Interesting Articles (Score:1)
However, I do believe their slide about 900+ day uptimes is slightly innacurate/out of date. Its pretty easy with good hardware to get either Linux or *BSD to stay up 900+ days, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to. Its very rare in a 2-3 year time period that a machine won't need to be brought down and updated due to some vulnerability. *BSD is not immune to vulnerabilities and neither is Linux. So keeping a machine up for 900+ days just seems rather foolish.
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:2)
The key here is to purchase their always-on product (they have an oversubscribed port product which requires you to 'log in' to the service, get timed out, etc.)
I have the 640k service and have dedicated static LAN IP address. Make sure that your service comes with the Cisco 675 router and isn't the internal card (which requires windoze drivers).
But as long as you have the Cisco LAN version, you've got an ethernet gateway, which does DHCP. As long as your service has static IPs and is always-on, you'll be set. I don't know but would fear that having 'connect on demand' service will require windows software.
-cc
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Articles (Score:1)
Re:*BSD too slow -- SPECweb reveals all (Score:1)
Solaris isn't there.
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
This can be nothing but good news for the BSD's. Knowledge of inferiority springs forth competition and improvement, and destroys complacency. Microsoft responded with Windows 2000. What will the BSD'ers respond with? Only time will tell.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Open source not a viable alternative? (Score:1)
I am not sure I understand you. What about Apache which has 60% market share in the web? And the producers make money because Apache is used to promote their business.
FreeBSD is interesting in that it was originally developed by a school in the true spirit of altruism which I will agree is not suggicient in the marketplace. However, it does make a decent platform for some things.
I am not sure why you seem to think that open-source is unproven, when in fact it is, in the case of Apache, based upon tried and true marketing principles applicable to all market sectors. Of course companies like Red Hat may or may not have their business models properly designed but that is true of any business in any industry.
The idea that Qwest may be running FreeBSD is interesting, but take a look at Netcraft! Many other companies are doing the same. [comments concerning the reputation of Qwest omited]
Anyway I think that it is time that people realize that the economy has NOT fundamentally changed in the last hundred years, merely new stuff has been built upon the same foundation.
Re:Remember: BSDI is closed source (Score:1)
Only because most Linux companies have not remembered that support is rarely a profit-winning strategy. It adds no value. I think that soon, companies will discover that in order to be successful they have to ADD VALUE to the packaged product. THis comes through software and engineering-- helping companies tailor the software to their needs and then providing the support.
Open Souece should be the market of ADDING VALUE, and I predict that OEMs will soon approach Linux with this attitude.
BSDi is one helluva reliable product. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Float your boat (Score:1)
Most of the FreeBSD advisories are related to *ports*, while most (all) M$ advisories are related to their *core* products (OS, Office, IE, IIS, etc).
You have more than 11 years, do you? I mean, you understand the difference?
Re:Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Articles (Score:1)
While I belive that you shouldn't reboot your computer just for the heck of it, I do think that the people who have huge security holes because fixing it would require them to reboot the computer are a little to obsessed with uptimes. Although, in truth, UNIX doesn't need to be rebooted for all the mundane things Windows does.
Its about time they took a second look at LINUX (Score:1)
Why FreeBSD? (Score:2)
Dont get me wrong, I like FreeBSD, but I like OpenBSD too.
Float your boat (Score:2)
Linux still has ways to go and its surprising to see the great efforts of Slashdot running Linux based machines but personally I wouldn't use it for super high end stuff with a volumnious amount of users since it has its pitfalls.
Now to that same poster both FreeBSD and Linux suck when it comes to security as FreeBSD almost rivaled Microsoft in security advisories last year, and although OpenBSD is my OS of choice it does not have the support in hardware for most mega corporations' needs.
Solaris is a different story altogether which no one mentions good old Sol here. Although it is a bit bloated with uneccessary binaries there is no comparison for any Linux or BSD based server running Oracle versus a Solaris machine running Oracle its like comparing apples and oranges.
Why the posting of a FreeBSD based article when all this time I thought Slashdot had reformed itself to a Microsoft/Linux/Stupid Scientifical story based site with semi-weekly postings of stupid movies and stupid anime, not to be overshadowed by an assinine arsenal of other stupid articles the world just won't need.
Home Sweet Home [antioffline.com] ya bastards
Re:second-hand info (Score:1)
I have to question your numbers. If these numbers were true, especailly for FreeBSD, then why does some of the major software chains now carry FreeBSD on their shelves right next to Linux, and Win*?
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts. Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS.
I can't believe for a second that they would carry software if there are only 36400 users of FreeBSD TOTAL, like you are saying.
Re:Internal vs. External Use (Score:1)
Well, here in Michigan, Internet 2000 is an ISP that runs FreeBSD. They give you a shell account and will help you setup your dial up service under FreeBSD, if you need help. Just their billing at the time sucked, so I switched. Now I have @home which is unreliable but fast. Well, @home's e-mail servers are unreliable anyways.
Re:Qwest my be *BSD, but they still mess up royal. (Score:1)
Its not just Qwest, its seams to be ALL DSL providers. My boss has been trying to get DSL for the past 3 months. The techs have been to his house 4 times and it still isn't working correctly. For some reason they can't understand that he has an ISDN line and all they have to do is use the second set of lines coming into his house to hook up his DSL. He has tried 2 providers and he still is waiting for them to get it right. But my other boss, got his first time, just lucky I guess.
Re:They might use BSD inside, but (Score:1)