dbr wrote:With a shorter period for more downloads, I expect there would be an even greater 'cliff' at the end time than the one now at midday.
Well,
here's one for the books then! Whatever the "cliff" may look like,
today's figures (that is, 1st of August) set an all-time record for Exetel!
dbr wrote:Therefore I would recommend that if a significantly higher quota was offered for a shorter period, it should be 0300-0700.
I'm not at all sure the higher quota is
needed to justify the shorter period. It seems to me that the users responsible for these "peaks" of which today is such a dramatic example, are
not actually using their full quota - simply because you cannot occupy the whole ten (let alone 12) hours continuously,
within the quota.
This constant barrage of traffic in the "off-peak" period, which is in fact now
the peak period (and that's been the whole problem to start with) can really only be explained by torrent users who are active sporadically over the whole period allocated but
collectively result in very heavy traffic. As such, they probably
don't care a great deal about the actual (traffic) quota and just as likely are not greatly concerned about the time either. Those (few) who make comment here, who are desperate to obtain the maximum quota
and the maximum time, no doubt make comment because that is what they desire, but do not necessarily represent the majority or indeed many at all.
No doubt the admins would have a reasonable idea of who is who and who is the most common - the "average" user whose main use is in the "peak" period, the "moderate" downloader whose "off-peak" use is markedly larger than their "peak" use and is spread out evenly over that period and often with significant upload use, and the "max" user who goes closely to the limits.
username4me wrote: How about using a non technological method to change the peaks?
Send an email to users over (say) 30gb off peak quota and ask if they're willing to voluntarily schedule their downloads after 4am to help maintain exetel's high speeds and low costs?
Oh yes, as if
that's going to work.
{In essence, that's what was already done at the start of this particular exercise - and
don't say that it somehow wasn't clear enough for people to see the meaning.}
I await the admins' confirmation of the profiles of use, but I'm not at all sure this problem is actually the result of a few "over 30gB" users but rather just a large number of "happy downloaders" (and mainly by their characteristic behaviour, torrents).
xQx wrote:but generally speaking I'm a strong advocate of Network Neutrality.
I suspect the vast majority of us are!
