Help Beat on Our New Server 153
Allright the big beefy new VA Research
box (Dual P2/450 with 512 megs of RAM- replacing a dual
P2/266 with 256 megs!) is up and running
at 206.170.14.76. Go
ahead an smash it around a little bit. I need a little
bit of that Slashdot Effect before I try actually running
Slashdot on top of it. If we don't have any major problems,
I'll probably switch everything over later tonight. The
old server was handling over a half a million pages per day.
Hopefully this one will have muscle enough to support us
while I work on the personalized homepage stuff.
Update: 03/08 05:27 by CT : THUD. that didn't take long.
yeah... (Score:1)
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
It's linux, is it not? (Score:1)
nak (Score:1)
Trying 206.170.14.76...
Connected to 206.170.14.76.
Escape character is '^]'.
Red Hat Linux release 5.2 (Apollo)
Kernel 2.0.36 on an i686
login:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Hmmm..... Beowolf? (Score:1)
Isn't Beowulf just for specialized Beowulf-enabled apps?
Isn't working right... (Score:1)
ACK! TCWWW! (Score:1)
Things to try (Score:1)
2) Make sure you're using a good NIC. The typical VAR machine comes with an Intel EtherExpress Pro 100, which qualifies as a good NIC, but make sure they didn't pawn off some surplus junk out of the back room on you
3) Tune your buffers. You have a humongous amount of memory, use some of that as buffers. In the 2.2 kernel with 512mb of memory, you might want to try using as much as 80% as buffer cache... try "echo '2 10 80' >/proc/sys/vm/buffermem". You can change the last number to vary your percentage. The default, using a max of 60% as buffer cache, is somewhat inappropriate for a web server with 512mb of memory, even with a lot of dynamic pages.
I think that the above suggestions will probably improve your performance by anywhere from 20% to 75%, depending upon your particular job load. It should in any event make serving your static front page blazingly fast.
-- Eric
Some folks can't take a joke (Score:1)
The comment about "surplus junk out of the back room" was a joke. You can tell because it has a little smiley after it (like this:
-- Eric
Ain't got no problem (Score:1)
New server is up and happy from where I'm connected.
traceroute to 206.170.14.76 (206.170.14.76), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 100Mb-OC3 (209.144.48.1) 3 ms 7 ms 2 ms
2 209.144.53.41 (209.144.53.41) 8 ms 6 ms 6 ms
3 sl-gw3-kc-11-0-T3.sprintlink.net (144.224.25.13) 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms
4 sl-bb10-kc-0-2.sprintlink.net (144.232.2.45) 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms
5 sl-bb11-chi-4-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.9.118) 21 ms 24 ms 20 ms
6 sl-bb1-chi-4-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.0.134) 20 ms 21 ms 21 ms
7 144.232.8.142 (144.232.8.142) 34 ms 33 ms 31 ms
8 165.87.34.161 (165.87.34.161) 52 ms 31 ms 31 ms
9 165.87.13.61 (165.87.13.61) 143 ms 125 ms 123 ms
10 165.87.13.30 (165.87.13.30) 155 ms 156 ms 143 ms
11 165.87.161.73 (165.87.161.73) 151 ms * 125 ms
12 ded1-fe11-1-0.snfc21.pbi.net (209.232.130.4) 77 ms 78 ms 75 ms
13 209.232.138.214 (209.232.138.214) 77 ms 82 ms 83 ms
14 206.170.14.76 (206.170.14.76) 259 ms 234 ms 249 ms
www.microux.com -- PowerPC Monsters (Score:1)
take a look at these. Using AIX or linuxppc these things roar www.microux.com [microux.com]
Deja News (Score:1)
>some of the webserver survey counters carry stats
>on who is using what OS
Try this one:
http://www.netcraft.com/cgi-bin/Survey/whats?ho
Much more interesting
More hardware? (Score:1)
Dual P][266 sounds formidable enough. I could see the use for more ram to handle simutaneuous accesses, but that much more CPU?
from ga (Score:1)
*BSD doesn't support SMP (wrong) (Score:1)
Linux is not a server OS (Score:1)
... as you've handily demonstrated.
Linux is a desktop operating system; ask Linus, or any of your other advocates. What you need is a server operating system.
Like this. [freebsd.org]
Linux 2.0 vs. Linux 2.2 vs. FreeBSD (Score:1)
be a good time to try to benchmark the
new server, using Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2, and
FreeBSD, just to see how they all compare.
(I tried posting this from work, but it didn't
get through. Then again, I was an AC at the
time).
What do y'all think?
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
Servlets? (Score:1)
- they're to write
- they allow easy accessibility to other applications/machines through Java's enterprise API's such as Enterprise JavaBeans, Java Transaction Service, Messaging Protocol, RMI and JavaIDL (CORBA orb).
- they scale well
- they encapsulate logic well so your web code isn't all gucky with embedded ASP or PHP scripts
- Though if you like the above, Java Server Pages are an option, and actually *are compiled* on the fly to a servlet... so they're more efficient than ASP
Basically I view servlets as an equivilantly good choice to mod_perl. Only thing about Perl is that allows you to make one big mess of code to do something vs. forcing you to cleanly decouple/modularize stuff, which is a big maintenance nightmare over time if you start out with a quick'n'dirty solution (what doesn't ?
out of curiosity, what's better than Mod_perl + apache and a database? ASP+Win NT is "okay", but I wouldn't give it super marks. application servers like Netscape's or IBM's websphere? I think they have a lot of potential myself...
FreeBSD is a server OS (Score:1)
Yes it does. Ask Paul [mailto]. Just because you can't buy it on a CD-ROM doesn't mean it's not running on someone's processor somewhere. No graphics support yet, mind you, but then you were talking about a server, weren't you..?
--
W.A.S.T.E.
FreeBSD is a server OS (Score:1)
Oh, bugger it, Paul is at originative.co.uk [originative.co.uk], not originative.com. Still, he'll probably be thankful to not be spam-botted.
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Ping is awful. (Score:1)
Yep, I'm seeing averages of around 500ms from mountain view here at VA off of PA-Cix.
Chris
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
VP, SVLUG
Web Benchmarks = Kak (Score:1)
Dead again? (Score:1)
Trying 206.170.14.76...
Connected to 206.170.14.76.
Escape character is '^]'.
Connection closed by foreign host.
HTTP is down, other things are up
slashdotted already...73 bytes/sec (Score:1)
SLOW! (Score:1)
I'd guess it's transfering at 5, 6 bytes per second tops.
But it works.
nak (Score:1)
Why RedHat? WHY? WHY!?!?
Damnit, damnit, Sonofabitch.
The Microsoft effect... (Score:1)
The Microsoft effect... (Score:1)
The link is in the top left hand corner of your screen.
faq
hof
CODE
awards
slashNET
older stuff
rob's page
submit story
book reviews
user account
ask slashdot
advertising
supporters
past polls
cachedot
features
topics
about
jobs
BSI
bitchin' (Score:1)
Lignux (Score:1)
I'm doing the best I can... (Score:1)
dt040n05:~# cat beat_up_slashdot.plx
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
use Socket;
require "tcp.pl";
while (1)
{
open_TCP(F, "206.170.14.76", 80);
print F "GET / HTTP/1.0\n\n";
# print $_ while ();
close(F);
}
dt040n05:
I'm certainly doing whatever I can to "help"!
Do an Eddie cluster with the machines... (Score:1)
I'd bet that would handle a hell of a lot more than it would by itself....
Muhahahaha 10 x %wget -m -q http://206.170.14.76/ (Score:1)
works wonders too
Grroooorrr!
O-KAY, time to set up the firewalls.... (Score:1)
...this flame war has gone quite far enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
(Those are supposed to be firewalls.... no I don't know what firewalls really look like unless they're square with wires comin' out the back and that's not the kind I'm talking about.)
Anyway.... let's call truce and stop calling names.
ElpDragon.
*BSD doesn't support SMP (Score:1)
---
Your config must suck or something... (Score:1)
Why you cant handle the load
Oh yeah, before I get flammed for running three webservers on one machine... trust me, if it were up to me, I would run only apache with perl dbi calling oracle on another machine!
Mike
derGott
Since we are doing tracert's (Score:1)
1 10 ms * 2 3 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms sl-gw10-fw-8-3.sprintlink.net [144.228.134.117]
4 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 208.12.128.2
5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms sl-bb11-fw-1-1.sprintlink.net [144.232.11.25]
6 30 ms 40 ms 30 ms sl-bb21-ana-5-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.8.174]
7 40 ms 40 ms 40 ms sl-bb4-ana-4-0-0.sprintlink.net [144.232.1.30]
8 30 ms 40 ms 40 ms lang1sr1-11-0.ca.us.ibm.net [165.87.157.98]
9 30 ms 40 ms 40 ms 165.87.32.114
10 180 ms 180 ms 191 ms sfra1br1-0-0-1.ca.us.ibm.net [165.87.230.202]
11 180 ms 200 ms 221 ms 165.87.13.30
12 201 ms 200 ms 190 ms 165.87.161.73
13 240 ms 251 ms 230 ms ded1-fe12-0-0.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.83]
14 230 ms 240 ms 241 ms 209.232.138.214
15 280 ms 290 ms 321 ms VA [206.170.14.76]
Trace complete.
Dog slow (Score:1)
Tracing route to VA [206.170.14.76]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms localhost
2 4 ms 2 ms 4 ms router1-ether0.gslink.com [205.157.143.1]
3 9 ms 9 ms 10 ms 209.8.136.110
4 7 ms 7 ms 6 ms fe3-1.mcl1.cais.net [209.8.159.41]
5 7 ms 9 ms 7 ms hssi6-0.me1.cais.net [209.8.159.25]
6 13 ms 11 ms 19 ms mae-east.ibm.net [192.41.177.110]
7 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms beth1sr2-11-0-0.md.us.ibm.net [198.133.27.10]
8 7 ms 9 ms 8 ms 165.87.29.114
9 147 ms 143 ms 126 ms sfra1br2-2-0-1.ca.us.ibm.net [165.87.230.102]
10 127 ms 132 ms 157 ms 165.87.13.42
11 135 ms 140 ms 139 ms 165.87.161.73
12 151 ms 128 ms 127 ms ded1-fe11-1-0.snfc21.pbi.net [209.232.130.4]
13 144 ms 122 ms 145 ms 209.232.138.214
14 * 534 ms * VA [206.170.14.76]
15 * * 598 ms VA [206.170.14.76]
Trace complete.
slow server (Score:1)
Pings a lil slow.. (Score:1)
Reply from 206.170.14.76: bytes=32 time=738ms TTL=41
Pinging slashdot.org [206.170.14.75] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 206.170.14.75: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=232
Stan "Myconid" Brinkerhoff
Oh my god they killed /.!! (Score:1)
Linux 2.0 vs. Linux 2.2 vs. FreeBSD (Score:1)
I will say that I've noticed a marked improvement in speed going from Linux 2.0 to 2.2, as well as from going from FreeBSD 3.0 to 3.1. (Which is to be expected...3.0 was pretty shaky in places.)
FreeBSD is unpolished (Score:1)
Hmm, that could perhaps be because more time is spent on making FreeBSD actually work properly, instead of making "GNOME GTK++ KDE++ UDE mega-xForms glibc3.1337 RedHat RPM binary ultra-mega-leet" distros.
I gets NO LUV'IN! (Score:1)
Bumm*ED*
Kernel 2.2.2 WHAT? (Score:1)
Slashdot source code (Score:1)
Have you played around with the java servlet stuff. It rocks. I implemented a "slashdot-like" message board in it, and it only took a couple days. It lacks all the features of slashdot, but it was fast. It was more responsive than static pages, in many cases... (ie all the "nodes" index info was already in memory, so the server didn't have to load anything from disk.) It would probably be even faster with a JIT.
later
Servlets? (and java in general) (Score:1)
I like java because it is a cleaner language than C++, and it provides features that require some trickery to emulate in C. (ie all that dynamic linking, and the reflection API stuff). Plus it is a very nice language. I really like features like inner-classes. Also gc, objects references rather than pointers, and threads being part of the standard java base classes are a plus.
When I was still in school, I used a lot of C/C++... I implemented a (not-quite-full-featured) JVM in C++, so I knew quite a bit about the underlying JVM, but I hadn't actually used Java to implement anything other than some silly test programs. At my current job, I have implemented are reasonably good sized application (sorry for being vague, but NDA and all...), and I have come to appreciate the java language (and realize how brain damaged C++ is).
I have found that my development time for stuff implemented in java to be lower than equivelent projects implemented in C/C++. Plus, application speed hasn't really been as much of an issue as I had initially anticipated. There definately is a speed penalty, but I think for most things the difference in development time more than makes up for that.
I probably left out some features that I like...
BTW, I used apache + mod_jserv for my little servlet.
The Microsoft effect... & OS Slashdot (Score:1)
----------------------
It's linux, is it not? (Score:1)
Get a clue.
There's only one version of the apache source, there aren't any redhat specific kernel mods, and they don't include any wacky cron jobs.
re: Servlets? (Score:1)
Integration:
Servlets are tightly integrated with the server. This integration allows a servlet to cooperate with the server in ways that a GGI program cannot. For example, a servlet can use the server to translate file paths, perform logging, check authorization, perform MIME type mapping, and, in some cases add users to the server's user database. Server-specific extensions can do much of this, but the process is usually much more complex and error-prone.
Efficiency and Endurance:
Servlet invocation is highly efficient. Once a servlet is loaded, it generally remans in the server's memory as a single object instance. Thereafter, the server invokes the servlet to handle a request using a simple, lightweight method invocation. Unlike CGI, there's no process to spawn or interpreter to invoke, so the servlet can begin handling the request almost immediately. Multiple, concurrent request are handled by separate threads, so servlets are highly scalable.
Also has sections on Power [Premade networking, compresion, database, CORBA, serialization, Third-party components, Serlvet chaining],
Elegence, Extensibility, Flexibility, Portability/Saftey (more targeted at C++)
Still a bit sluggish (Score:1)
I think you better check your connections on the server to the 'Net. The response is still a bit on the slow side.
Is the server connected to the 'Net with a T-1 or T-3 line?
FBSD + Alpha? (Score:1)
--
Finally an answer to the age-old question... (Score:1)
SLOW! (Score:1)
Or not?
Bandwidth, not hardware (Score:1)
I could be wrong here, but I'm getting basically the same response times from triton, and the 'new' server at .76. Maybe the problem with the load isn't from the lack of hardware, but from a lack of bandwidth? It could also be caused by some code/information bloat on the server, which is simply transfered over to the new server. I don't think Linux is the problem, so I don't need the FreeBSD advocates after me.
:)
My site contains 100% GPL'd source code
new box ... overloaded? (Score:1)
we
It seems like a configuration problem since it loads pretty quickly up until a certain point. c'mon CT!! we're rooting for ya, (no pun intended)
-earl
It is open-sourced... (Score:1)
Linuxconf on port 98 (Score:1)
OTOH maybe he ought to give out his root passwd and let the
Just kidding
The Microsoft effect... (Score:1)
Any thought about open-sourcing it? :)
What, like having a link to the source code as the third item from the top in the left sidebar of every page? Naaah. It'll never happen.
nak (Score:1)
So here we are, slowly moving away from the MS monopoly, and then we find OS bigots among us even still? And I thought we were all going to be one big happy family...
Jesus, is it just because people need to point fingers and denigrate others in order to feel superior that we have crap like this happening?
So they're using Red Hat. Big friggin' deal! You want they should use NT? Or MacOS? Maybe they should have got themselves a Sun Enterprise 10000. Would that make you feel better? Yeah, that would be better: skip Linux all together, because they would get shit no matter what distribution they picked. And nobody could complain about a big Sun. That probably would have been the wise choice.
What we need here is a little solidarity. They picked Linux, and that's a Good Thing(TM). All this name calling and devisiveness can only hurt the Linux movement.
Lighten up.
-B
Slashdot OS benchmarks = good idea! (Score:1)
What benchmark software do you recommend? I've punished the living s**t out of a linux box (dual proc, 512MB RAM) with webstone 2.5 and the 100BaseT NIC (EEPro) was the bottleneck for static pages. Funneling half the traffic through a 3c905 (not 905B) boosted throughput quite a bit.
Here are the results from the best run versus Apache (performance goes down with more clients...)
WEBSTONE 2.5b3 results:
Total number of clients: 200
Test time: 2 minutes
Server connection rate: 684.13 connections/sec
Server error rate: 0.00 err/sec
Server thruput: 103.30 Mbit/sec
Little's Load Factor: 198.46
Average response time: 0.290 sec
Error Level: 0.00 %
Average client thruput: 0.52 Mbit/sec
Sum of client response times: 23815.70 sec
Total number of pages read: 82096
Note that these were for the standard Webstone [mindcraft.com] distribution for static file benchmarks. I have no dynamic results. I also don't have a complete benchmark disclosure ready-- this is just a quick test I ran a while back versus linux 2.2.0
Slow as well... (Score:1)
new server (Score:1)
Slashdot OS benchmarks = good idea! (Score:1)
I've seen some old HTTP server benchmarks comparing Linux 2.0 and FreeBSD 2.8. FreeBSD had twice the transactions per second! Now that the shiny new Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD 3.1 kernels are out, let's get a second look. Does anyone know of any recent benchmarks in this vein??
cpeterso
Mindcraft says, "NT+IIS faster than Linux+Apache" (Score:1)
Your Linux 2.2 statistics:
Server connection rate: 684.13 connections/sec
Server thruput: 103.30 Mbit/sec
Mindcraft's NT4 statistics:
Server connection rate: 929 connectsion/sec @ 50 clients
Server thruput: 137.7 Mbit/sec @ 50 clients
Wanker: Were the Linux statistics you posted from your EEPro + 3c905 benchmark? The NT benchmark used two 100Base-TX network interfaces on the server. This might explain why the NT numbers look so good..?
One caveat: the NT benchmark was done with WebStone 2.0.1 and the Linux benchmark was done with WebStone 2.5b3.
Connection refused (Score:1)
connect at all.