Pros/Cons Dual Best Effort ISP vs Fiber/MPLS.
-
@Dashrender said:
Great - how do you quantify the actual risk?
All I know right now is I pay $880 and in 7+ years I've had 15 mins of unplanned downtime.
I pay $120 at another location and I 3 different days at 4 hours per day of downtime.That's all very misleading data, sadly. Because a new connection will not necessarily have anything to do with what you have seen elsewhere. Might be the same, might be better, might be worse. And sadly, seven years of a fiber line is not enough to get insight into the failure rates because outages tend to be very long and very infrequent. Like a volcano.
Take this scenario..... if you were to have lived in San Francisco for three generations you would report that while there are tremors and little earthquakes, there is nothing scary ever. A little concerning maybe, but not scary of dangerous. Yet if you take a long view, scientists know that an earthquake levels the city and kills a huge number of people every 110 years or so. It's very regular and very dangerous. But 90 years of observation would make it seem like this wasn't a real risk.
When dealing with infrequent risks, observation is a dangerous thing.
-
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
I was thinking this as well. If there was a good wireless provider in the area get a 4G/3G modem in the mix as failover and you eliminate most ISP related downtime. I rarely hear of cell towers going "down".
-
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
I was thinking this as well. If there was a good wireless provider in the area get a 4G/3G modem in the mix as failover and you eliminate most ISP related downtime. I rarely hear of cell towers going "down".
They do, but one of the great things is they tend to go down from completely different events than land lines tend to go down from.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
I would agree with that, that most do not. Same factors that make most appropriate for consumer or prosumer links.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
I was thinking this as well. If there was a good wireless provider in the area get a 4G/3G modem in the mix as failover and you eliminate most ISP related downtime. I rarely hear of cell towers going "down".
They do, but one of the great things is they tend to go down from completely different events than land lines tend to go down from.
A lot of cell towers around here aren't running generator backups so they go down often.
-
The thing about a cell tower outage is that nearly all people just see it as a "gap in coverage." It's not like losing a terrestrial line, it appears very differently to the end users.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The thing about a cell tower outage is that nearly all people just see it as a "gap in coverage." It's not like losing a terrestrial line, it appears very differently to the end users.
But not to a non-mobile secondary link. In that case it would be considered down. Although as you said, generally ISPs and cell service don't go down at the same time.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
I really don't think most business need dual links. These days a good ISP rarely goes down when it's not planned. The only reason we had it at the town was because of the police department there are things they need in an emergency, information on past crimes as well as facebook (which they can only get their special access to inside the network) Facebook is become more valuable that most people realize in detective work and active shooter situations.
I was thinking this as well. If there was a good wireless provider in the area get a 4G/3G modem in the mix as failover and you eliminate most ISP related downtime. I rarely hear of cell towers going "down".
They do, but one of the great things is they tend to go down from completely different events than land lines tend to go down from.
A lot of cell towers around here aren't running generator backups so they go down often.
Ouch, that could be an issue for sure.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The thing about a cell tower outage is that nearly all people just see it as a "gap in coverage." It's not like losing a terrestrial line, it appears very differently to the end users.
But not to a non-mobile secondary link. In that case it would be considered down. Although as you said, generally ISPs and cell service don't go down at the same time.
Still depends, coverage varies all the time and an outage of a tower might only look like a drop in quality.
-
I just had an interesting conversation at lunch.
So far, pretty much everyone here (as far as I can tell) have considered my idea of dumping the expensive fiber line and getting two commodity ISP links as a general good move. Of course a few of you have said something to the effect - prove to me that not being down is worth the extra costs - and I'm understanding that.
So, in my lunch conversation, and PSX will love this, my associates told me I was looking at it all wrong (granted you all have to, just for different reasons). To them the fact that I am even considering getting rid of the fiber connection is unthinkable. Why in god's name would I get rid of a pipe that has proven itself (yes I read your post Scott) so reliable. Instead of getting rid of that, if down time is really an issue, or as it appears, additional bandwidth is needed/desired, but the cheap best effort connection in addition to your current fiber connection, route your EHR and SIP traffic through that (with failover to the best effort) and push everything else off to the other pipe.
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
-
@Dashrender said:
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
If that's what the uppers want I'd just do it assuming you presented the case well.
-
@Dashrender said:
I just had an interesting conversation at lunch.
So far, pretty much everyone here (as far as I can tell) have considered my idea of dumping the expensive fiber line and getting two commodity ISP links as a general good move. Of course a few of you have said something to the effect - prove to me that not being down is worth the extra costs - and I'm understanding that.
So, in my lunch conversation, and PSX will love this, my associates told me I was looking at it all wrong (granted you all have to, just for different reasons). To them the fact that I am even considering getting rid of the fiber connection is unthinkable. Why in god's name would I get rid of a pipe that has proven itself (yes I read your post Scott) so reliable. Instead of getting rid of that, if down time is really an issue, or as it appears, additional bandwidth is needed/desired, but the cheap best effort connection in addition to your current fiber connection, route your EHR and SIP traffic through that (with failover to the best effort) and push everything else off to the other pipe.
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
Basically it's a conversation in a bubble. Like everything else, his recommendation is worthless without the financial data. Is spending $200 worth it for the additional speed? I can't answer that.
The thing that you proposed was lower risk, higher speed, lower cost. Win / Win / Win regardless of other financial details. It was a "guaranteed" improvement. Maybe not the best decision, but a known move in the right direction regardless of what factors matter to the business.
What this guy is proposing is faster and more reliable but much more costly. So Win / Win / Loss.
Which is better, a pure win? Or a tradeoff where you don't know which factors are the ones that matter? If only cost really matters, you might be screwing the company. If intense reliability doesn't matter, you'd be screwing the company.
So honestly, I think he's being reckless and illogical - just throwing away money because he's using emotion, not logic, to deal with the ambiguity of not having the details necessary for you to do your decision making.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
If that's what the uppers want I'd just do it assuming you presented the case well.
It was an associate. I doubt it was an upper.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
If that's what the uppers want I'd just do it assuming you presented the case well.
Lunch was with friends, not management - I see their (my friend's) point, and if management signs off GREAT! but since I already made the mistake of talking to my boss after the possibility of lower costs... this will be an unpleasant conversation to say the least.
-
Most of us (I think) see the lower cost + faster internet + the added benefit of failover / redundancy for your ISP as a win though...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So honestly, I think he's being reckless and illogical - just throwing away money because he's using emotion, not logic, to deal with the ambiguity of not having the details necessary for you to do your decision making.
Details only for the sake of conversation were as follows,
Company looses $1000/hr of downtime (all other loses are actually deferred income, because they would be rescheduled).
Company grosses 12 million a year, employees 80 people. The save of $8600/year moving to pure commodity is but a blip on that radar, and 'to them' isn't worth the potential risk by moving to a pure commodity setup. -
@scottalanmiller said:
What this guy is proposing is faster and more reliable but much more costly. So Win / Win / Loss.
Their believe is that the reliability is so much greater than the commodity setup that the extra cost compared to our spend on things like employee salaries, health insurance, malpractice insurance, etc.. that the $8600 a year isn't worth the added risk.
I'm just not sure I can make that jump with them... again, soft science, so it's pretty hard to really know.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So honestly, I think he's being reckless and illogical - just throwing away money because he's using emotion, not logic, to deal with the ambiguity of not having the details necessary for you to do your decision making.
Details only for the sake of conversation were as follows,
Company looses $1000/hr of downtime (all other loses are actually deferred income, because they would be rescheduled).
Company grosses 12 million a year, employees 80 people. The save of $8600/year moving to pure commodity is but a blip on that radar, and 'to them' isn't worth the potential risk by moving to a pure commodity setup.Wait... so $12,000 lost on the "commodity" connection, which is really only 12 hours over 7 years or less than two hours a year. You are looking at ~$2,000 of downtime a year vs the additional ~$8,000 of the cost of the reliable line? Just trying to make sure I understand.
Edit: Maths
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
So instead of saving my company nearly $600/month, raise my price by $200.
Thoughts?
If that's what the uppers want I'd just do it assuming you presented the case well.
Lunch was with friends, not management - I see their (my friend's) point, and if management signs off GREAT! but since I already made the mistake of talking to my boss after the possibility of lower costs... this will be an unpleasant conversation to say the least.
Why have it? What's the business reason for suggesting this?
