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<