Skype replaces P2P supernodes with Linux boxes hosted by Microsoft

rated by 0 users
This post has 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,053
Points 60,715
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 Posted: Tue, May 1 2012 9:40 PM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft.ars

Sometimes you gotta LoL... hard.

I'm not sure if I like Microsoft running 10,000 Linux nodes internally, but at least this will cut down on my bandwidth utilization as a previous supernode.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • Filed under:
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,795
Points 40,670
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York
Inspector replied on Tue, May 1 2012 10:26 PM

LMFAO the irony, who made the decision to go against their own company? xD

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,865
Points 29,645
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: United States, Connecticut

Inspector:

LMFAO the irony, who made the decision to go against their own company? xD

It would cost too much to put a MS Operating system on all those machines :) Plus even they know Linux is better for the task at hand.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,795
Points 40,670
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: New York

Why would it cost them much? its their software... not like its a product where you would have to make one for each server. And true on the second point :P.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,053
Points 60,715
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Thu, May 3 2012 6:32 PM

Inspector:

Why would it cost them much? its their software... not like its a product where you would have to make one for each server. And true on the second point :P.

It would cost them much because when they switched Hotmail over from FreeBSD to Windows they found they had to (by some reports) double the number of servers to handle the same load.

Also, MS's own study said *nix operating systems were easier to secure, administer, and more cost effective (even more true for customers that would be paying to reduce their functionality/uptime with Windows):  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/ms_paper_touts_unix/

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS