[Info-vax] Marketing ideas for VSI ?

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 22:13:25 UTC, Dave Froble  wrote:
> On 12/15/2018 3:48 PM, Kerry Main wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Info-vax <info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com> On Behalf Of Dave Froble
> >> via Info-vax
> >> Sent: December 15, 2018 3:24 PM
> >> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> >> Cc: Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] Marketing ideas for VSI ?
> >>
> >> On 12/15/2018 2:05 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, I'm not a network person.  I'm lucky if I can properly plug in
> >>>> an
> >>>> RJ45 plug.  But, I'd ask, if you have more to push through a pipe
> >>>> than the pipe can handle, why not more pipes?
> >>>
> >>> That's basically what we have been doing for the past 40 years or so.
> >>> More pipes, and fatter pipes, and that is why we have far more
> >>> bandwidth today than we had in the seventies.
> >>>
> >>> But... we don't have any less latency.  In fact we have more latency
> >>> since store-and-forward systems now wind up having to store more data
> >>> in-transit in order to sort and filter, quite often.
> >>>
> >>> Now, one of the things we do have are better ways to deal with
> >>> latency.  The VoIP people have much better echo cancellation than they
> >>> used to have... so although there may be a second lag time between the
> >>> time you stop speaking and the time the next person speaks, the effect
> >>> is not as annoying as it might be.
> >>>
> >>> A lot of protocols have evolved to deal with higher latency.  We don't
> >>> use Berkeley r-protocols anymore.  But more pipes and fatter pipes
> >>> don't solve latency issues.
> >>> --scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, are you saying, waiting for a chance at the "pipe" isn't much of a
> > latency
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> As I mentioned, I don't know much about these things.
> >>
> >
> > An analogy ..
> >
> > 6 cars lined up on a 6 lane highway that is exactly 100 miles long -
> > straight as an arrow with each car max speed = 200mph.
> >
> > The fastest any one car will make it to the end is 30mins (latency)
> >
> > Now, in this scenario, a total of 6 cars can make the trip in 30min's
> > (bandwidth)
> >
> > Adding an additional 6 lanes to the highway to improve the bandwidth means a
> > total of 12 cars can make it to the end in the same amount of time.
> >
> > However, the fastest any one car can make it to the end is still 30min's.
> 
> I totally understand that part Kerry, but, for that 6 lane highway, what 
> happens when there are 12, 18, 24, or more cars?  Is that much of a 
> problem, or do they just line up and go, and the small difference 
> between cars isn't much of an issue?
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
> 170 Grimplin Road
> Vanderbilt, PA  15486

"It depends". Seriously. I hinted at this earlier when I 
mentioned "buffers".

The allegedly predictable piece of the journey is the 100 
miles of interstate at 50 miles an hour. 2 hours, right?

But there's usually more to a real journey than that. Getting
on to the interstate from the point of departure, and getting 
off to the destination.

Without knowing much more about the traffic details, all that
can confidently be said in advance  is that the one way trip 
will take *at least* two hours. Maybe a little bit more, maybe 
a lot more, depending on the traffic offered and the available
capacity at any given time.

I believe it's called "queuing theory".

If you're the only car in the area at the time, you don't 
really care whether it's a 2 lane, 6 lane, or whatever, 
highway.

If you're one of the 200,000 vehicles a day trying to get
into or out of central Boston in the mid 1990s, you'd really 
like the main routes to have more lanes, to cut the queues.


(Plenty of other non-Boston equivalents too).