Re: hardware/optimizations for a download-webserver
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:49:26PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said:
> > Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker:
> > >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >> >Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a
> > >> >theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ?
> > >>
> > >> With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec
> > >
> > >What makes you think so?
> > >
> > >Other people get >10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s.
> > I do not belive it !
> > Maybe with UDP but not TCP it is not possibel from the protocol.
> > I have high performanc NIC's and some servers which are killer
> > but never gotten more as 7,4 MByte/second
> > How do you Benchmark ?
> > Two computers with 2 feet cross-over cable ?
> > Maybe you will have zero errors, but in real it does not work.
> (create large file)
> steve@hadrian:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024 count=50000
> 50000+0 records in
> 50000+0 records out
> (get large file)
> steve@gashuffer:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/~steve/large_file
> 22:46:09 (9.61 MB/s) - `large_file' saved [51200000/51200000]
> Of course, for reasonable sized files (where reasonable is <10MB),
> I get transfer speeds closer to 11MB/s. YMMV, but it is not a fault
> of the tcp protocol. Switched 10/100 connection here. Of course real
> internet travel adds some latency, but that's not the point - the NIC
> is not the bottleneck, bandwidth is in the OP's question.
*ARGH*... and of course, there's *definately* no compression going on
there, is there...