|
daytripper05
Psychonaut




Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 6,962
Loc: In my garden
|
Web Server/Banwidth help
#8105723 - 03/05/08 11:18 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I can't remember the specs of the CPU and such atm, but its very capable of doing the job. Currently, it's running Windows XP, Apache, PHP, MySQL, and FTP.
When I do banwidth tests from the server I get close to 1mb Up and 10mb Down. But when I download a large file, or even view big pics from a webpage it's very slow. File downloads never exceed 72KBs/sec. I am the only one using the server atm, and no real traffic.
I am confused as to how my download speeds are so shitty. Could it be the router? All the cableing on the network is CAT6 but the router hasn't been upgraded. I am currently on the process of building a proxy server on a Linux machine. (The webserver is the next conversion.) Would adding a dedicated proxy server to do all the routing help? Possibly some configuration settings?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: daytripper05]
#8106005 - 03/05/08 12:42 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> I am confused as to how my download speeds are so shitty.
Hint...
> it's running Windows XP
Last I heard, Microsoft had crippled XP so that it will not function as a "server" (by killing the up speed) to help prevent people from sharing digital content on peer to peer networks. Score another for the RIAA.
Could be router/wiring related, but I suspect the above is more likely. Try a free unix flavor and see if your speeds improve.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
daytripper05
Psychonaut




Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 6,962
Loc: In my garden
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: Seuss]
#8107246 - 03/05/08 05:47 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I am already in the motion of upgrading to Linux so this is not unexpected. Everyday that passes using XP as a server was driving me nuts anyway. Thanks for the help.
|
Ythan
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ



Registered: 08/08/97
Posts: 18,840
Loc: NY/MA/VT Borderlands
Last seen: 11 hours, 7 minutes
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: daytripper05]
#8107970 - 03/05/08 08:05 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: Last I heard, Microsoft had crippled XP so that it will not function as a "server" (by killing the up speed) to help prevent people from sharing digital content on peer to peer networks. Score another for the RIAA.
Sounds like you're talking about SP2's 10 simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection limit (TechNet). It can affect P2P traffic but I think its intended purpose was to control the damage done by zombie computers. Anyway it's easily patched. But daytripper I doubt it's responsible for this problem if the server isn't under load. Although that patch wouldn't hurt. But I don't think it's a hardware issue either. A single 1Mbps HTTP connection is not very demanding.
Anyway if you're upgrading to Linux there's a good chance it will just work itself out. I'm not really clear if the server's at an office somewhere, or a colocation facility, or your bedroom or what, but if you still have a speed problems I'd make sure nobody else is sharing the internet connection. Remember 72KBps is more than half of the 1Mbps you say it tested at. And some of the bandwidth gets wasted on overhead. Although that shouldn't be a big deal with one connection. I dunno, good luck man!
|
daytripper05
Psychonaut




Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 6,962
Loc: In my garden
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: Ythan]
#8109055 - 03/05/08 11:40 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well I checked out the server specs. I don't even have sp2 installed, just sp1. And the server is in an office setting.
I just did a test and the upload checked in at 1100kbps but when I try to download I get speeds 72kbps. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not half. I don't think that much could be lost.
You see, I have a client that wants a custom ecommerce site built using paypal's checkout, which is no problem. But I really want to host it as I have a good place to do so with good resources. But I only want to do so if I can provide adequate speed. I don't expect a ton of traffic, but I would like to know where I stand. I have thought about upgrading the ISP account but currently they are being bought out by another so with until that's settled, the upgrade isn't available in the area.
Anyway, technical issues aside, do I have the capacity to host a website with 1100kbps?
|
Montanahunter420
Mushroom Hunter



Registered: 05/10/06
Posts: 1,188
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: daytripper05]
#8109424 - 03/06/08 01:19 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Outsource it to a hosting company. Really what's $8 dollars per month. Unless you need something really specific on the server it really isn't worth running your own. Xp is a really bad idea to use for a server. When you start talking about xp and the transfer of funds, it really gets scary. Linux/Unix is secure, xp well is the farthest thing from secure, except maybe vista. Hostmonster.com isn't to bad you get ruby on rails, php5 and mysql, and ssh command line access. I just signed up a client of mine with them. It's a low traffic site so I really can't say anything about the server load, it loads the site really fast as it is though, and it's full of lots of mysql queries.
-------------------- All of my posts are purely fictional and for hypothetical purposes.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Web Server/Banwidth help [Re: Ythan]
#8109888 - 03/06/08 06:03 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> Sounds like you're talking about SP2's 10 simultaneous incomplete outbound TCP connection limit
Ah, yep, that is it. I thought they had capped the maximum up speed as well. I could easily be wrong.
> It can affect P2P traffic but I think its intended purpose was to control the damage done by zombie computers.
That may be the excuse they fed the masses, but in reality, it was the RIAA pushing to limit peer to peer networks. Why not fix the security bugs to prevent zombie computers in the first place rather than cripple the OS so that zombie computers do less damage?
Regardless, XP is oriented/"optimized" for desktop usage, not for server usage... and windows installs in general, even their server versions, suck when compared to unix for server environments.
Keep us posted with your results. I'm curious to what you discover is at fault.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
|