Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 14:37:23 -0400 From: Drew Baxter <netmonger@genesis.ispace.com> To: dg@root.com, John Cavanaugh <john@bang.rain.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: another record Message-ID: <4.1.0.67.19981024143720.00a5fd90@genesis.ispace.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
And while you're at it, just send one of those 100MB's this way.. :-) At 11:23 AM 10/24/98 -0700, David Greenman wrote: >>> Well, yesterday's killer record of 587GB from wcarchive didn't last >>> long. It's getting a bit "interesting" that we're so close to topping the >>> terabyte/day threshold. >> >>Why "interesting"? >> >>We still have a ways to go before you saturate the 100Mb ethernet don't we? >>(don't skewer me if i'm wrong, I haven't done the math) And I know that >>the Pro/100B isn't the "sticky" point as far as pumping data out to the >>rest of the world... > > The fast ethernet was maxed out for most of the day. It will be necessary >to increase our circuit bandwidth before we'll be able to go much higher than >this. Average packet size is less than 1000 bytes. Layer 2 packet overhead >limits us to around 85-90Mbps with full duplex fast ether. The addition of >layer 3 overhead reduces the actual throughput by even more. There is also >more data going out than just files being downloaded (welcome message, >messages that come out when you cd to various directories, directory listings, >etc. - none of this is accounted for in the stats)...this actually amounts to >more than you might think. The totals we're talking about only include the >total number of downloaded file bytes sent out. > >>Can you give us some more details on wcarchives other upcoming upgrades? >> >>You had mentioned putting a 400Mhz Xeon in. Is this change going to a >>allow more ftp sessions or just get the load average under 30 occasionally? >><grin> >> >>Thanks! ;-) > > The load average on a machine like wcarchive might just as well be a random >number. It's a composite of both disk and CPU "load" and isn't useful in our >case for determining the machine's potential. In fact, what is interesting >is that the load average (which is typically around 25-60 on wcarchive, but >varies a lot) is so LOW. Don't forget that we have *3500* file downloads go >on. One might expect the load average to be well into the hundreds. > As for planned upgrades, we'll be going to Xeon/4xx in a month or so. The >main reason for doing this is the increased memory capacity - the new machine >will have 4GB of RAM. This will allow us to increase the FTP limit to at >least 10000 users. My main concern at the moment is that we don't have >sufficient network bandwidth to support that many users (we're just hitting >the limit of our 100Mbps circuit with 3500 users). We're talking with CRL >about our options. I'm advocating gigabit ethernet, but we may have to >settle for multiple 100Mbps circuits in the short term. > >-DG > >David Greenman >Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message --- Drew "Droobie" Baxter Network Admin/Professional Computer Nerd(TM) OneEX: The OneNetwork Exchange 207-942-0275 http://www.droo.orland.me.us My Latest Kernel: FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT (ONEEX) #14: Mon Oct 19 22:36:58 EDT 1998 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.0.67.19981024143720.00a5fd90>