| Author |
Message |
steve
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:34 am Post subject:
dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
-Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Neil W Rickert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:34 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
"steve" <steve_tyrol@hotmail.com> writes:
| Quote: | We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
|
In the case of a disaster, neither might be completely reliable.
If you have both, then at least you have some redundancy. But that
won't guarantee anything either.
Widespread electrical outages could make key routers unavailable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lyn Bruzaud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
steve wrote:
| Quote: |
Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
-Steve
|
Well DSL runs over phone company wires so I would go with DSL.
LB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:46 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In article <1105745658.229068.315460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
steve <steve_tyrol@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
-Steve
|
I'd consider ISDN for backup. There's also a case for one of the
mobile/wireless IP services from T-mobile, etc as a doomsday link.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Fleckenstein
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:48 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
| Quote: |
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
|
Cable in my area does not have battery backup.
A power outage anywhere between you and the main site means your connection is
toast.
ADSL has battery backup and central office generator backup.
ADSL service thru a local my telco provider includes dialup service as well so
if your broadband connection went down you could still dial into the network
with your v.92 modem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:55 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In article <MPG.1c524e87fbff2b029896aa@News.Individual.NET>,
Steven Fleckenstein <zpfleck@zitlink.zet> wrote:
| Quote: |
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
Cable in my area does not have battery backup.
A power outage anywhere between you and the main site means your connection is
toast.
ADSL has battery backup and central office generator backup.
ADSL service thru a local my telco provider includes dialup service as well so
if your broadband connection went down you could still dial into the network
with your v.92 modem.
|
The cable companies are not under and FCC/state PSC regulation as a
life-critical service. The phone company is, and as he said, the cable
co doesn't have batteries.
Dialup is frequently useless in a disaster situation becuase
everyone calls home and you can't get a connection.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John P. Dearing
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:05 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
steve wrote:
| Quote: | Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
|
Actually, neither makes a *good* disaster recovery service.
Cable has the power is the distribution system issues (widespread power
outages take the whole cable system down).
DSL if fed directly from the Central Office has an advantage there.
C.O.'s are battery backed up with standby generators with many hours of
diesel fuel in the tanks. They can run indefinitely as long as fuel can
be delivered every few days.
DSL fed from Remote Terminals (R.T.'s), while battery backed up doesn't
have standby generator power available. I've seen a few R.T.'s
"flatline" after the batteries died after an extended power outage of
just a few hours. These things are supposed to be designed to run for 8
hours or more but many have either been poorly maintained or have too
much equipment installed and have much shorter runtimes. Sometimes as
short as just two or three hours. There are facilities for powering
these terminals from portable generators but they need to be dispatched
and that takes time, sometimes more time than the batteries will last.
But Cable and DSL not high priority services. That is, they aren't high
on the list of things to be restored when there is a crisis. Cable
companies are still in the "it's only TV, it'll be back on when we get
around to it" mode of operation. Unfortunately, the Phone Companies are
starting to slip into that mode as well.
One person suggested ISDN. That's a possibility but ISDN still isn't a
high priority restoral item either.
Good luck!
John
--
John P. Dearing
A+, Network+, Server+
To reply: Just drop "YOURPANTS" in my address! 8-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:05 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
Trace the wires yourself. Cable center is often nothing
more than a metal shack located on some back lot surrounded
with a chain link fence. No power backup. No security. No
apparent (serious) surge protection. Furthermore, the cable
is dependent on amplifiers on utility poles - also no security
and no power backup. Cable only provides what is is minimally
required to provide service and is completely dependent on
every part of the electric company system working.
Intermediate amplifiers in selective sections of town without
power can take out your cable service.
The phone company, as others have noted, are in hardened
brick buildings (some were hardened for war), with battery
backup (for four hours), and with generator backup (for days
of power). Furthermore, DSL and ISDN is already being
obsoleted with a dedicated fiber optic from your building to
theirs (no intermediate amplifiers), terminates inside the
same hard building, and with days of backup power.
Of course both solutions (cable or telco) require you have
on site power and support that is just as reliable.
Cable has no intent to provide such resiliency. Telco takes
such resiliency seriously.
steve wrote:
| Quote: | Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
-Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In article <41E8A0A8.14CC2EF5@hotmail.com>, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Trace the wires yourself. Cable center is often nothing
more than a metal shack located on some back lot surrounded
with a chain link fence. No power backup. No security. No
apparent (serious) surge protection. Furthermore, the cable
is dependent on amplifiers on utility poles - also no security
and no power backup. Cable only provides what is is minimally
required to provide service and is completely dependent on
every part of the electric company system working.
Intermediate amplifiers in selective sections of town without
power can take out your cable service.
The phone company, as others have noted, are in hardened
brick buildings (some were hardened for war), with battery
backup (for four hours), and with generator backup (for days
of power). Furthermore, DSL and ISDN is already being
obsoleted with a dedicated fiber optic from your building to
theirs (no intermediate amplifiers), terminates inside the
same hard building, and with days of backup power.
Of course both solutions (cable or telco) require you have
on site power and support that is just as reliable.
|
FWIW; I can testify that during the Big Blackout, a couple years ago,
my home DSL connection stayed the whole time, more than 24 hours. I
had my Linksys and DSL modem plugged into a decent UPS that serves my
big desktop system. When the lights went out I turned off the desktop
machine and fired up my laptop. That gave me 3 hours of use, rationed
over several hours. When that battery died I jacked into the UPS and
it carried me thru the rest of the outage.
Depending on how critical your business is, your contingecy plan needs
a contingency plan. sh*t happens, and it's completely outside your
control. been there, done that.
http://sysadminmag.com/ had the best article I've seen in a long while,
it was an update based on lessons learned in Manhattan on 9-11.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Redelmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:24 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Widespread electrical outages could make key routers
unavailable.
|
Speaking of which, there was a massive US North East powerfail
a few years ago, including MAE East. How did the Internet
fare? particularly Europe/NAm traffic that would be mostly
routed through submarine optical cables from the Boston area.
I live outside the balckout zone, and don't recall any difficulties.
The Internet is designed to route around missing components.
It is not a single-path heirarchy except near the fringes.
Even modest-sized ISPs are multihomed.
-- Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:29 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In article <ZZeGd.2270$2e7.638@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | Neil W Rickert <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
Widespread electrical outages could make key routers
unavailable.
Speaking of which, there was a massive US North East powerfail
a few years ago, including MAE East. How did the Internet
fare? particularly Europe/NAm traffic that would be mostly
routed through submarine optical cables from the Boston area.
I live outside the balckout zone, and don't recall any difficulties.
The Internet is designed to route around missing components.
It is not a single-path heirarchy except near the fringes.
Even modest-sized ISPs are multihomed.
-- Robert
|
I'm in NYC and was one of the later areas to come back. My DSL modem
and linksys pox were/are on UPS with my desktop system. When the
lights went out I shut down my big system and preceeded to use a
laptop, with the USP to use the internet. never dropped a beat.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:02 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
"steve" <steve_tyrol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105745658.229068.315460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Hello
We are going to install a backup data line in an off-site location in
case of disaster at our main office. The bandwidth can be relatively
low, as it would probably be connecting 10 people at the most to the
internet.
Is there any significant difference in the level of service/resiliency
of the network in general between dsl and cable? If a medium to major
disaster were to hit the area, would one infrastructure be better able
to handle the increased traffic/possible damage than the other?
An thoughts/opinions are appreciated.
-Steve
Most (all?) cable networks were designed for entertainment. So they omit |
things such as redundant circuits and emergency power/battery backup. The
telcos tend to be a lot more anal (good thing) about network quality and
reliablility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bert Hyman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:06 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In news:34idnaNMe_cqD3TcRVn-3A@adelphia.com "George"
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
| Quote: | The telcos tend to be a lot more anal (good thing) about network
quality and reliablility.
|
This was true when there was just The Phone Company (AT&T) [or at least
they ->said it was true], but since the system's been fragmented, is there
still the same sort of commitment?
AT&T used to make it sound like working for them was almost a religious
calling.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:39 am Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
In article <Xns95DFA3CF97B69VeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com>,
Bert Hyman <bert@visi.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In news:34idnaNMe_cqD3TcRVn-3A@adelphia.com "George"
george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
The telcos tend to be a lot more anal (good thing) about network
quality and reliablility.
This was true when there was just The Phone Company (AT&T) [or at least
they ->said it was true], but since the system's been fragmented, is there
still the same sort of commitment?
AT&T used to make it sound like working for them was almost a religious
calling.
|
I imagine that there is still a public saftey requirement in the FCC
and state PSC regulations, at least for voice calls. I have no idea
what priority they require for the digitial side of the network..
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w_tom
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject:
Re: dsl vs. cable for disaster recovery |
|
|
Never use (post 1970) AT&T as an example of quality or
reliability. Once the telcos broke up, AT&T took the MBAs;
phone people went with the baby Bells. Numerous regional and
nationwide blackouts by AT&T throughout the 1980s demonstrates
how bad AT&T became. Look at their top management. Business
school graduates without product experience. No experience
working where the work gets done. Therefore AT&T preached a
lie - the purpose of a business is it profits - the customer
be damned. That mentality explains why AT&T even blamed their
own unions for blackouts created by technically naive AT&T
management.
AT&T is an benchmark example of how to run an unreliable
business. Their top management does not come from where the
work gets done and blames everyone (except top management) for
their failures. Best example of this was Robert Allen.
Classic example of a business based upon principles taught in
business schools - where the product is only a messy
necessity.
BTW, where does innovation not happen? In companies that
use those same business school principals - such as AT&T.
Again, product people went with the baby Bells; business
school graduates (experts in business finance) with AT&T. Who
had growth? Who instead blames everyone except their
management? AT&T demonstrated what type of management creates
failures.
Bert Hyman wrote:
| Quote: | This was true when there was just The Phone Company (AT&T) [or at
least they ->said it was true], but since the system's been
fragmented, is there still the same sort of commitment?
AT&T used to make it sound like working for them was almost a
religious calling. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in