4 ms·
As soon as you use a significant portion of it all the time, you don‘t have „1Gig internet“ to advertise anymore. Be happy to be able to provide actual 1Gbps a
by red0point 5y ago
As soon as you use a significant portion of it all the time, you don‘t have „1Gig internet“ to advertise anymore.
Be happy to be able to provide actual 1Gbps as a best-effort to your coworking space! If I were a customer, I‘d be glad that I can download my 50GB of whatever I need asap and use the full connection I paid for, and not have 50% of it clogged by some TOR relay or stuff like that.
I mean, the customers are paying for it, right? So they should be able to use it for whatever they need, as much or as little as they need.
- tumblewit 5y agoI think there can be routing policy rules in place if a request came in asking for 700mbit/s for example the balancing would kick in providing that bandwidth. And tbh there is very likely going to routing balancing rules anyway even if I don’t know the nature of OPs business since he mentions bandwidth here.
- josephcsible 5y agoIt's easy to set up QoS rules such that your Tor relay only gets whatever bandwidth is left over (if any) after your paying customers get dibs at the entire 1Gbps.
- kirillzubovsky 5y agoYup, the customers are definitely happy. Getting 1Gig on their own is rather expensive, but this way they pay indirectly, and still get most of the benefit. Many of the users don't overlap, where some come in the morning, some mid day, and some late at night. On top of that, most of the time they aren't exactly downloading terabytes of information, it's predominantly Zoom and YouTube, plus some general web traffic. I could do something with 20% of the bandwidth and no one would blink. But yes, in general, I would err on the side of offering better internet to the users, rather than making an extra buck with some trickery.