Re: net-op: traffic loads as the result of patching

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan () world std com>]

> You are correct and with BITS2.0 or really any version of BITS which any 
> updated system should have BITS2.0 it will use only the available 
> bandwidth given. So say you are using 70% of your bandwidth, BITS on XP 
> will only use the other 30%. So Bandwidth should not be an issue, but 
> what I have noticed with WSUS is multiple clients connecting to the 
> server will drive cpu utilization up only in peak form though like on 
> initial connection. For us this is one service that was not built 
> redundant because if for some reason like maintenance and our server is 
> down the clients will then failover to Micro$ofts servers to get them 
> directly.

I can't, and don't, speak for Sean, but I think he meant carrier side.
I didn't know WSUS was a local update server, but I do now. I think
in terms of Internet operations it's irrelevant how a WSUS is fairing
since that is completely under the control of the person operating it
i.e. get more memory, disk, or allocate more b/w if you have too .. 
and it's that important. MS did the right thing and made it free after
all.

I cant see that anyone is seeing anything other than the "same o". MS
patches all the time and has a lot of experience in capacity management so I
would think that they would've said something if it was to be different
than other patches. I've been monitoring IX stats and I am not
seeing much including small anomalies. In one of the European IX's
I saw what looked like the botnet itself operating. There was a delta 
on the patch release and the anomaly dropped, but I can't confirm it
was related to the worm. Speculation, but a fair one. I didn't contact
the IX since it dropped off and don't plan to. I think that this is just
another day on the Internet. Unfortunately.

-M<