[Nottingham] NTL Cache Performance Suggestions

[Robert Davies]

On Thursday 27 February 2003 18:38, you wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:01:23PM +0000, someone wrote:
> > > Shortly before I go suggest NTL shove their Nottingham caches where the
> > > Sun doesn't shine (they really are /absolutely crap/ at the moment), I
> > > thought I would point out that the Oxford caches are working fine.
>
> Blame peer-to-peer for crap evening NTL performance.  Personally, I found
> it bad enough to trigger my intended change to ADSL some months ago.  It
> was a million times better.
>
> If NTL start using the 1GB cap soon to kick the warez kiddies off their
> service, I imagine it'll get a lot better for those of you who are left.

Hmmmm yep, this afternoon I managed some 30KB/s uploads.  Now inspite of 
sending quite a lot of stuff up and down today, I've only actually 
transferred 92.5MB down and 87.6MB up, and it seemed I was transferrng a lot 
of files and archives.

OK so I could easily go and thrash on Gentoo, or Debian mirrors, or RH ISO's  
but what is the point of having local mirrors of large ftp servers when 
downloads are 50-125KB/s?

Seems to me the >1GB on only 3 days in 14 limit is actually fair, it lets you 
have binges, if everyone insists on their full 600Kb/s or 1000Kb/s 24/7 then 
the service would simply cost a lot more, or QoS fall through the floor.

> Theres a list of NTL proxies (and a load of other useful stuff) on Robin
> Walker's cable modem site.
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/
>
> Likewise though, I agree the Inktomi proxies are a real pain in the a***. I
> regulary configuremy browser manually to get around the problem, usually
> just a case of tweaking the number of the nottingham area one. ISTR that
> one of the nottingham ones is permanently duff.

What is the problem?  I use proxy caches myself and apart from the Google 
logos being messed with, which was amusing, I haven't suffered though as I 
had dialup meeting performance expectations was not good.

Rob