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<