Best Bandwidth?

talkwebhosts.co

New member
I have heard things about Cognet BW not being worth the loose change you find tucked in your car seats. What makes bandwidth good? Level3 seems to have a good reputation, then again companies like Wiltel are ranked just as badly as Cognet!
 
What makes good bandwidth is having low latency to the destination. If your bw is having trouble and slows down between hops on the provider it is usually considered bad. If the bw provider oversells and has times where service slows down it is considered bad. Of course outages are horrible too. Overall cogent has gone up in quality from what it was in the past, still not the best but IMHO not THAT bad. For most purposes it will run just fine.
 
Cogent:

I would like to say that cogent is great for those who want to reach cogent customers and for the price its amazing for those who stream and need cheap solutions. But being Single homed with Cogent I think is not the greatest thing.

Best Bandwidth:

Well honestly the ISP with the proper mix of bandwidth would be the best (of course BGP). Your route's incoming and outgoing to the proper destination with the fastest latency (ms).

So when it comes down to it:

Who do they peer with?

Peering with more than one carrier and setting up proper BGP / IGP routing is great if one peer (ISP) where to die. Peering also increases your hops to the destination if your peering with CLUED providers, I'll exclude cogentco on this (They peer with ALOT but there methods of routing setup are poor, Your route's might pass out 3-4 hops out then route back to the destination).

Does the admin's have CLUE?

Just becasue an ISP has 3 incoming providers or more and they are using BGP don't mean they are using it to there advantage. QoS can still be poor if your new DC or ISP has NOCLUE.
 
non-cognet good
cognet bad
simply and succinctly.
If you want reliability and speed, non-cognet is the only way to go. In my experience, ive found that sites using cognet bw are easy to tell from the non-cognet by the speed in which the site loads.
However, if it is not important for your site to be available quickly, the cheaper alternative is to go with cognet bw hosting.
If you want your site to respond quickly to requests such as in e-comm, forums, game servers, dynamic content, db driven sites, or company portals, then the best way to go is non-cognet bw. The cheapest place to find non-cognet bw is www.qualocate.com starting at $90/Mbps, and free support its hard to beat.

Frank.
 
Thats a very poor excuse to plug your own company... nice work!!!

you must not honestly know what bandwidth is and how it operates. If you have STRICTLY cogent with no peers its not bad as long as you wish to only broadcast to cogentco clients.

I'm not going to get into it..... I dont have cogentco for the simple reason they will not run a line to new hampshire or I would have it in my mix.
 
Crucial

I was referring to the difference between cognet and non-cognet bandwidth. I am sure you will agree with me that cognet bandwidth is known to travel along more congested routes of networks, thus remarkably cheaper (ex. 5Mbps for $15/m).

btw, check your website, collocation, should be spelled colocation. ;-)

Frank.
 
Hey.....

There has been a huge dispute on how to spell colocation and or collocation. After speaking with the state and various higher ups the correct spelling is actually collocation. Trust me I been doing this for 8 years =P
 
We manage a number of servers located in a cogent facility that serves up 100's of web sites. We've never had any issues with their bandwidth, speeds and the pricing our client gets is great.

I think cogent often gets a bad rap due to how budget providers use them for transit. I have seen many budget providers route the majority of their outbound traffic along their cogent lines. The traffic is often routed back to a main cogent facility before peering kicks in and the connection is handed off to another network. This routing is likely not the most efficient but is often the least expensive. I suspect it is this practice that gives Cogent a bad reputation.

By comparison, we manage some equipment in the PAIX in NYC. Those servers are 3 hops away from the router that handles the peering. The network provider has scores of peers, including the major teir 1 providers. As a result, we find that the routes are very efficient. The teir 1 provider prefers to route traffic along their own fiber but if things are slow, we do see different routes.
 
We've used redundant InterNAP out of a facility in Iowa, and now we use a mix with Cogent at Equinix - honestly - by this scenario the Cogent has been more reliable.

I totally agree; Cogent gets a terrible rap because of it's providers - because it's cheap. Therefore, all the super-low budget facilities, a.k.a. horrendous oversellers pick it up. People then place the blame on Cogent as if it's their network in general that's so horribly oversold, and that's simply not the case. It's the crap-box data centers with "$90 dedicated 100mbit unmet3tered!!!1" packages all over the place that give it that reputation.

Ridiculous.
 
Back
Top