Slashdot Mirror

mod_throttle and mod_bandwidth are pretty useful if you're running Apache 1.3; unfortunately (last time I checked) they aren't working right under 2.0 yet.

Oh, boo hoo. Any webmaster worthy of that title would have anticipated this possibility, and done something to handle it. Options range from using mod_bandwidth (or similar tools at the firewall level) to finely control how many people can access the server at once, to using a script to block any specific referrer once they send you 10000+ hits in one day (or redirect them to everyone's favorite site). Better yet, set up a Google adwords account beforehand and become a millionaire off the Google-dotting.

This won't stop the server from getting hammered with requests, but it will help significantly, as each request will be limited to however many bytes it takes to drop a TCP connection.

I had the same problem on my rather popular site (posting AC to to avoid /.'ing of my site). I found that a combination of mod_bandwidth and mod_limitipconn does the trick. That combined with a script that monitors the errorlog and reconfigures the firewall to block abusers.

Perhaps a bit of googling might help? mod_bandwidth

Another possibility is to use a certain feature of Apache, which lets you throttle bandwidth

mod_bandwidth. I have used it succesfully to prevent automatic downloaders from taking over our webserver.

JP

I use mod_bandwidth at work to simulate 56k connections to the web server.

It works quite well and will throttle per-connection or per-virtualhost.

If you can't live without Apache, there's always mod_bandwidth.

Not quite as elegant a solution, but it's nice for preventing your web server from taking all of your bandwidth (if, say, you run it off your cable modem, and wish to continue gaming...).

Two things.

One, that was the whole idea of having a multi-teir system. The top only supplies a connection to a limited number of children, who sully a connection to others. Hence, no single node is bearing the whole brunt.

Two, mod_bandwidth. There are ways to control bandwidth usage. Have a subscription model where those who wish to pay are given a certain amount of transfer capability ($5/GB?) with no speed cap. Something like a pre-paid phone card. Those who don't wish to pay... They have to compete for a limited bandwidth pool (all non-payers have to connect through a 10Mb/sec connection).

Value added, and self sustaining.

I hate to be the harbinger of news here, but windows is much easier to use, period. There's no debate about that one, and with XP it just gets easier. Try putting your mother down in front of a linux machine, and then do the same with a windows machine. There is a reason why windows is used on 90% of desktops, and why Microsoft is the software giant that they are (reasons beyond the typical slashdottery about squishing competition and cheating and crap), more than just "being in the right place at the right time".. It's because, for better or worse, they have the best set of software products out there. Office and Windows are extremely successful because they're good, and people like them and use them a lot. That's a fact, hard to dispute.

Biased. Plain and simple.

Granted, Windows is far easier to use than linux. That I will not argue with. Windows is not easy to use. Macs are easy to use. Windows boxen are ubiquitous. They are how the majority of computer users are introduced to computers, and that is a shame. Therefore they are the standard that all computers are compared against.

As for the fact that putting out a linux distro is expensive. Bull crap. Put out something popular on a slow link. If it's popular enough, it will be mirrored. At no cost to you. There are both Apache modules and FTP servers that allow you to specify bandwidth limits. I use both. It costs far less to put up an FTP server and host an ISO image than printing, labeling and distributing CDs.

The moderator that declared your post "Funny" had it right. You make some valid points (Microsoft is finally making some headway in the stability department) but declaring them "best" because they are the biggest is just plain foolish.

I use MS products at work, cause I have to, at home cause the game support isn't there yet for Linux, and never has been for Mac. But neither of these windows boxen are mission critical, or "on the internet" (i.e. each hides behind a firewall).

Each OS has it's strong points. Windows' strongest point is its prevalence.