Slashdot Mirror
Help Beat on Our New Server
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.
Running fine... though a little slow... First comment?
Hmm, either something is set up -very- wrong, or we just /.'ed the new /. server.
It's a dead link for me...
runs gnulix
It's prime time soon, i can see that thing smoking soon :)
-- Jordan
Connect: Host 206.170.14.76 contacted. Waiting for reply...
and waiting, and waiting...
its responding very slowly - pings come back around 900 ms, for your main box (206.170.14.75, triton) around 120 ms... I am on university lines, very fast, this box (206.170.14.75) loads up just fine and responds faster too... I am 17 hops away from the new box, 15 from triton... it might be something in there
- avatar -
Here you go Rob, this ought to get things moving
along
Say folks, that's an awfly nice box he has now.
Don't you think a beowolf cluster of those babies
would just scream?
I'm screaming already.....
SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
Well, is it dead already or what
Since the processor makes up %40 of the cost of a high end server, you should use a PowerPC for serius server situations-- its twice as fast at halft the cost and 1/7th the power usage (less heat, more reliability).
Course if you got this VA machine donated, then you don't care about price.
I'd buy VA servers if they would offer PowerPC versions. Better for them cause they get more wiggle room on their margins, too.
Ok, this is a troll, but still, why do you insist on saying "gnulix" everywhere you turn? Is it a personal thing for you? Do you have some kind of value on that name?
If you're going to try to converge two names, AT LEAST make it look good. "gnulix' kinda (err, majorly) sucks.
Much slower than the original /. :)
We must have killed it..
stuart@core-comm.com
YEah... its reaaly slow. Its been about 5min and all I have is the ad-banner and the Slashdot title (and I'm on a cable modem)
what is it? dual 450's on a 28.8 modem?
Just got the banner and then it hung up. Tried three times, same thing.
Quad ZZZZZZZZZZZZZeon!
I could barely connect. Are ping floods allowed? =)
Requested Information
206.170.14.76//
is unavailable. Failed to connect to server
206.170.14.76 (80)
reason: connect: Connection refused
"There was no response. The Server could be down or busy."
muahahhahaha!
Not...
4 sc-mc-1-S-T1.servint.net (209.50.254.74) 11.816 ms 11.854 ms 11.794 ms
5 epsilon3.servint.net (209.50.252.2) 11.383 ms 11.244 ms 11.374 ms
6 servint-gw.mae-east.h6-0-45M.netaxs.net (207.106.2.9) 12.925 ms 13.411 ms 12.786 ms
7 * netaxs-gw-1-100mb.above.net (207.106.2.70) 40.521 ms 31.676 ms
8 core2-mae-east-ds3-2.sjc.above.net (207.126.96.69) 109.091 ms 106.435 ms 113.695 ms
9 * pb-nap.pbis.net (198.32.128.23) 124.398 ms 124.305 ms
10 ded1-fe12-0-0.snfc21.pbi.net (206.13.28.83) 112.483 ms 110.975 ms 118.037 ms
11 209.232.138.214 (209.232.138.214) 110.979 ms 114.075 ms 133.663 ms
12 * * *
13 * 206.170.14.76 (206.170.14.76) 494.778 ms *
You might want to put a better NIC in that box. That, and upgrade to 2.2 and actually USE that other CPU ;)
hey Cmdr Taco... while avoiding the /. effect, please also avoid the Microsoft effect too. That means, when you redo your entire site, please please do NOT just add code on top of existing code when it can be optimized and revamped. Please, no hacks on top of hacks. We need Slashdot looking nice and pretty and efficient for the next century of readers.
:)
Any thought about open-sourcing it?
Okay, GliNUx, I think it's snappy, but not as snappy as gnulix.
It IS open sourced. Click around.
Am I wrong, or does the fact that you've got something on port 98 mean that you're running RH on your VARbox... i thought those things come with SuSE?
Every RH box seems to have something on ports 98
and 1024 (you don't have the thingdoodle on 1024,
I see), these never shows up on anything else.
Whatever.
Hope it works...
Told ya so :)
-- Jordan
I am so sick of people bashing Red Hat, its linux right?
-- Jordan
I'm currently sitting here alone on the network on a T1, that thing is SLOW. Either the connection sux or the box sux.
:P
On a different note, responding to some earlier posts...
I think you should have a competition to see who can come up with the best fixes/optimizations for the code running this site. Whoever wins gets... umm something and stuff. How about a nice SGI LCD display?
Oh my god, you killled the server!
I thought anything over 100ms was a problem!
No, VA gave him the NT bundle by mistake.
You couldn't possibly specify just how many failed root login attempts there have been since you fired this box up?
Just thought I'd let you know ;)
more importantly, why a 2.0 kernel on a multi-cpu machine
I can get around 45K/sec from /. classic, but only about 5K/sec from the new box. By any chance is
:)
the new box on a shared 10bT segment? Far end of
a dialup? Tin cups and string?
Your old box should have been sufficient; with that much memory, there should have been plenty of cache hits. IDE based machine, perhaps?
In any case, once you've finished tweaking/deploying the new box, I'll be more than willing to take the old one off of your hands
Sorry to say that, what a crap! VA should have put some oil on it.
Tracing route to VA [206.170.14.76]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 101 ms 100 ms 100 ms hrbgpahasap01.bellatlantic.net [192.168.129.45]
2 91 ms 90 ms 150 ms 192.168.129.30
3 100 ms 100 ms 140 ms 206.125.199.198
4 90 ms 120 ms 170 ms 207.68.17.10
5 120 ms 130 ms 211 ms Serial9-0-0.core1.bwi1.IConNet.NET [204.245.69.7
0]
6 130 ms 120 ms 111 ms Serial2-0-0.core1.dca1.IConNet.NET [204.245.69.9
4]
7 110 ms 130 ms 181 ms POS0-0-0.peer1.dca1.IConNet.NET [204.245.71.6]
8 200 ms 121 ms 170 ms mae-east.ibm.net [192.41.177.110]
9 191 ms 230 ms 220 ms beth1sr2-11-0-0.md.us.ibm.net [198.133.27.10]
10 190 ms 180 ms 180 ms 165.87.29.161
11 190 ms 301 ms 200 ms sfra1br1-0-0-4.ca.us.ibm.net [165.87.230.98]
12 190 ms 180 ms 190 ms 165.87.13.30
13 190 ms 271 ms 180 ms 165.87.161.73
14 261 ms 200 ms 210 ms ded1-fe12-0-0.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.83]
15 190 ms 210 ms 201 ms 209.232.138.214
16 260 ms 1603 ms 270 ms VA [206.170.14.76]
Trace complete.
I am running to you from a V.90 USR Sportster, so I am totally happy with these numbers.
The interim site on that machine has acceptable response times and transfer rates.
I think I figured out why the new server is so slow....
It is getting slashdotted.....
Uh ... SMP+2.0.X mix like elephant and pig DNA
Uh ... SMP+2.0.X mix like elephant and pig DNA
(still better than NT+SMP...)
Maybe I can tell you in a couple of weeks as I have
just submitted a tender to build a cluster of 64 of
them for a client
Redhat is sloppily put together and not suitable for a heavily hit server, as I'm sure you've noticed with Slashdot's bouts of downtime. People say it's optimized for end-user desktops. Fine. Let it stay there.
You should have FreeBSD on this box.
Rob,
Why don't your release some of the perl scripts, misc programs, database schema, etc. that runs slashdot? That way others could improve on them and help you speed things up a bit.
Maybe you should hire a programmer to optimize some of the CGIs?
Or maybe you should switch to FreeBSD?
-J
One for the almanacs.
--Uche
Both have the same number of hops from here (17)
but the new server had half the latency, hence I get a better response from it.
*shrug*
Isn't BGP fun.
AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
You _must_ be kidding.
Either that, or you're unaware that Slashdot needs a MORe POWERFUL server. You drop FleaBSD on this box, and the old one running Linux will blow it out of the water.
Facts say otherwise. FreeBSD holds the current record of data transfered (see the stats for ftp.cdrom.com posted a few months ago).
2.2.x will beat the crap out of BSD on a dual or quad CPU box.
I heard FreeBSD can be faster in some instances since it was optimized for the Intel x86 processors in many ways.
Yes, it would be a good idea. But how many people on this board really want to know the truth? It's much more fun to say things like "Linux rulz! everything else sucks".
Why don't your release some of the perl scripts misc programs, database schema, etc. that runs slashdot?
Look harder.
Yes, I'm really sure being RedHat is the cause of downtime. It's probably not his SQL server, Apache, or anything else. It's RedHat, plain and simple. I mean, it's optimized for end-user desktops. Er... What the hell does that mean? So it includes Gnome and is therefore unstable as a server? It's all the same software, period.
$ traceroute 206.170.14.76 -i eth1
traceroute to 206.170.14.76 (206.170.14.76), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 adsl-209-233-17-254.dsl.pacbell.net (209.233.17.254) 20.382 ms 23.978 ms 16.604 ms
2 srvr1.snfc21.pbi.net (206.13.28.1) 13.113 ms 93.182 ms 32.049 ms
3 ded1-fe11-1-0.snfc21.pbi.net (209.232.130.4) 12.163 ms 12.361 ms 12.883 ms
4 209.232.138.214 (209.232.138.214) 13.624 ms 13.318 ms 13.133 ms
5 206.170.14.76 (206.170.14.76) 96.382 ms 96.533 ms 99.599 ms
Hmm... looks a little bit slow.
$ telnet 206.170.14.76
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:
AUUUUGH! I guess that explains it!
The code's out there. Look on the left side for the code link.
I thought anything over 100ms was a problem!
Not through SprintLink. Anything under 100ms is a miracle once you hit Sprint. Never mind the double-helping of bizarre and random routes they add in, it's the saturation that makes it suck so badly.
the code is on your top lef...erp nevermind. (seems to be enough refernnces as it is.)
samedi@disinfo.ICHN'BEINEINSPAMMEUR.net
Linux is a desktop operating system; ask Linus, or any of your other advocates. What you need is a server operating system.
You mean one of these? Oh, wait... that's Linux. Maybe I was thinking of this one. No, I guess that's Linux too, ain't it?
Actually, all it demonstrates is that Linux 2.0 is slower than 2.2. Which is what everyone's been saying all along.
Like this.
Isn't that one of them arcane UNIX(tm) things? Didn't they go out of style in the 80s? I think something a little more modern is in order.
Do you think it is as cheap and supported in Linux as DEC Alpha? Who sells PowerPC systems? Or do I need to buy a motherboard myself? From Motorola? They dumped their Macs...feh. Even IBM doesn't use PowerPC for other stuff than expensive servers.. why should PowerPC work better when IBM is not marketing PowerPC systems at consumer price, or whatever.
Well... is it because Cdrom.com has that big of a pipe, and that many customers, and there isn't a comparable site running Linux to compare??
Well, is there a comparable Linux site out there??
I doubt that I am going to convince a perl hacker to switch to java, but I gotta try
... but is Java one of them?
[...]
What are the upsides of using Java over Perl anyhow? I'm aware of the downsides (the speed hit from the JVM, the severe lack of useful and interesting libraries compared to CPAN, the fact that one must write Java code to get anything done, and the rest of the usual "perl rocks!" sort of thing). But I'm painfully unaware of the upside. Is there an advantage to servlets in general, or Java in particular, that makes them somehow better than mod_perl?
I'm sure there are solutions better than your basic mod_perl & apache
Just ask cdrom.com, yahoo, hotmail, pair.com, etc... Plus it's damn nice having the OS and distribution integrated. Also the entire system can be updated by CVS and rebuilt at any time.
There is nothing wrong with linux but it can't compare to FreeBSD performance and stability under heavy loads.
an iMac? Power Mac?
That's crap - our farm runs nothing but RH and it serves over 75 million pages per month.
The bandwidth is generally fine. It's the memory.
Mind you, this was asking for trouble Rob.
I reckon there is an effect on this one too, it seems almost as bad
Some of the webserver survey counters carry stats on who is using what OS. Try here. Transfer rates aren't provided, but you can guestimate what the high-load sites are.
Maybe if you run the out of the box setup. Anyone who knows what they're doing will set up a redhat box so that it's fine. Please, it takes about a half hour to turn a redhat box into a slackware/debian/caldera/whatever box.
Heh heh heh, lets get it on....
And they also have 17 systems aliased on www.dejanews.com. Plus the backend database servers.
What would be really cool is to get a couple systems behind a round-robin ipportfw setup. The gateway system can boot off a floppy or something to reduce the risk of failure to almost zero. Then you can write a little script to remove internal hosts from the round-robin list if they don't respond to pings.
Asside from the initial hickups, I think with
this machine your next (read immediatly) buy should be a second
NIC. Run it with 2 100Mb NICs, and you will scream
I also like the idea of setting up both old and
new machines as a team to serve up the pages.
You Rock Rob!!
mrcl -- Only 1 month, 8 and a half days left of school, and I still can't think of a funny tag line.
The site seems quite a bit slower than before.
"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... "
Having just come through a mass transition from Solaris/Netscape Enterprise/Oracle to NT/IIS/Oracle to Linux/Apache/MySQL, I'd really have to put my weight behind the absolute latter. Benchmarks aside, the Linux combo beats the hell out of the other two combo's in a real-world environment.
Working through this nightmare really taught me the value of OSS. Contrary to popular opinion, support is much more available on a real-time basis. The arguement that applications are lacking does hold water, but having spent mondo-stupid $$ on "shrinkwrap" wares, I'd much rather go with the stable, reliable and fast platform that forces me to roll my own applications.
In the last two years, I've eval'd and used *many* different platforms and architectures for my project and I'd have to say that Linux is really light years ahead of the commercial offerings at this point in time.
64 machine Beowulf cluster? Naw, for business applications a c64 is the ultimate in technology.
Now a c64 beowulf cluster.. baaby that would really SMOKE!
*grin*
Interesting ports on (206.170.14.76):
Port State Protocol Service
21 open tcp ftp
22 open tcp ssh
23 open tcp telnet
37 open tcp time
53 open tcp domain
70 open tcp gopher
79 open tcp finger
80 open tcp http
98 open tcp tacnews
109 open tcp pop-2
110 open tcp pop-3
111 open tcp sunrpc
113 open tcp auth
139 open tcp netbios-ssn
143 open tcp imap2
513 open tcp login
514 open tcp shell
635 open tcp unknown
2049 open tcp nfs
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=204.3 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=211.8 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=206.0 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=207.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=158.4 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=5 ttl=53 time=181.7 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=6 ttl=53 time=249.3 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=7 ttl=53 time=200.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=8 ttl=53 time=229.4 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=10 ttl=53 time=245.8 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=11 ttl=53 time=234.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=12 ttl=53 time=214.9 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=13 ttl=53 time=182.4 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=14 ttl=53 time=249.1 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=15 ttl=53 time=145.6 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=16 ttl=53 time=201.0 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=17 ttl=53 time=254.6 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=18 ttl=53 time=179.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=19 ttl=53 time=214.8 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=20 ttl=53 time=238.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=21 ttl=53 time=263.7 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=22 ttl=53 time=239.5 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=23 ttl=53 time=197.4 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=24 ttl=53 time=242.2 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=25 ttl=53 time=228.6 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=26 ttl=53 time=204.4 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=27 ttl=53 time=232.1 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=28 ttl=53 time=217.5 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=29 ttl=53 time=210.0 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=30 ttl=53 time=240.6 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=31 ttl=53 time=214.5 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=32 ttl=53 time=279.5 ms
64 bytes from 206.170.14.76: icmp_seq=33 ttl=53 time=189.9 ms
--- 206.170.14.76 ping statistics ---
34 packets transmitted, 33 packets received, 2% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 145.6/217.2/279.5 ms
There is nothing wrong with linux but it can't compare to FreeBSD performance and stability under heavy loads.
yes, especially on SMP machines huh? oh wait, I forgot, FreeBSD only just got SMP support and it isn't stable by a long shot. better get a fast uniprocessor, like an Alpha. oh wait, FreeBSD doesn't run on an Alpha, or an Ultra. well, you're shit outta luck then, if you need to actually process data instead of just pump it out the door.
so stop waving around with www.cdrom.com, it's not applicable here and besides, that straw is getting old.
The SMP support (in at least FreeBSD) holds a global kernel lock as did Linux 2.0. Solaris is 3 years before Linux is 3 years before FreeBSD.
But one thing you really could do to help the free software cause, is to release sanitized logs (without actual IP, user names, etc...) of most components (apache server, SQL requests, TCP/IP connections...), for the free software community (and even the research community) could understand what are the real issues on a real loaded Linux server.
Because without understanding what are the performance issues, how could other Open Source people know how to optimize their code ? I'm thinking of the SQL servers, perl, and Linux kernel. How can they know whether there is, say, a 'select', a TCP/IP or a context switching performance problem ... ? They couldn't. They have to rely on ad-hoc benchmarks, that might lead wrong design decisions.
Maybe other sites could do that (we could even have a Free Performance Monitoring Log Fundation :-) ), but slashdot as evolved to be one of the most quoted and visited sites. And it seems to have performance issues, so it is perfect for monitoring: that way people could simulate one day of slashdot on there favorite hardware/OS/server/database. Bottlenecks could be founds. Differences between Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Digital Unix, Windows NT, whatever..., could be highlited and even corrected.
I know it has little relevance, but I'll be very surprised if the people at Redmond, non matter how lame they are believed to be (or maybe are), were sitting on their hands idling, while they have too one of the most visited WWW sites. I'll be very surprised if they weren't constantly tuning and improving the code of their server, especially considering the importance of WWW servers and the fact that IIS has less "marketshare" then Apache.
Please :-)
FreeBSD runs on alpha architecture now. Of course it's not as optimized as x86 FreeBSD, but the same can be said about Linux. For absolute best performance on alpha, digital Unix is the way to go.
But then, who cares about alpha architecture when the throughput record belongs to an x86 machine (ftp.cdrom.com):
230-This machine is a P6/200 with 1GB of memory & 1/2 terabyte of RAID 5.
didn't the Linux one have 200 simultaneous connections?
/.ing. that's the stuff.
that would could for a LOT more overhead than the NT results would indicate...
lets get some more REAL hard results with identical test systems.... dynamic content, real world
Last time I used it (a minor release ago) it seemed very unpolished. The packaging system seemed complex and confusing and the kernel compilation was even more confusing.
Jesus. For that much I could build a dual processor 450MHz Xeon system that would blow it out of the water. With two 9 gig drives, 256 megs of ram, etc.
Linux has been running on Alphas for a _while_, and there are now 2 high quality Linux distributions for Alphas, Debian 2.1 and Redhat 5.2
No matter how much you want to convince yourself that mod_perl stuff is compiled code, you're always gunna get bit in the ass in the long run.
Port the damn code to C. Remove all your server side includes for pulling in page headers (compile them in).
Bah.
That's because Slashdot sucks!
It wouldn't be near as cool, though. The whole x86 line is usually known as, "A bad stack of kludges." and Xeons are now at the head of the kludge list. IMHO, if you want a decent box look into alpha. Of all the 64 bit chips, MIPS, Sparc, and Alpha, it has the most recognition and is rather speedy.. Then again, Compaq bought Digital so it might be a good moment to start getting used to Sparcs. They seem to be the only line that will survive. MIPS is finishing after the R15000, which is unfortunate. Alphas might not make it past the 21364 if merced makes it big. Oh, well.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I'm certain you must mean -funroll-workstations, right? :)
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
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!!
Isn't Beowulf just for specialized Beowulf-enabled apps?
I'm consistently getting the banner ad and the bar with the Slashdot logo and the story icons, then my transfer rate drops off to nothing and I never get anything else, but the comets keep flying past the "N" and Netscape never says the page is done loading. I'm sitting on switched 100Mb Ethernet hooked to a T3, so it's not a lack of bandwidth on my end. I've seen this problem with the main Slashdot server, too, but it's been a long time since I've seen it do it more than once or twice in a row.
run!
1) Go to the 2.2.2 kernel. It really does speed up the SMP a lot and otherwise make a big difference on a dual processor machine. In addition, the dcache means that it will serve static pages VERY fast (no more walking the whole directory tree just to open a web page).
:-).
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
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Since Chris D. threw a hissy fit:
:-). All that aside, donated machines are often retired show machines, and show machines are often built from whatever parts happen to be lying around because they're not intended to go to real customers. Thus my suggestion about checking what kind of NIC is in the machine, in case it is not the quality EtherExpress Pro 100 that VA usually includes in their machines.
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
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by Kahn:
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
Posted by nitemare:
take a look at these. Using AIX or linuxppc these things roar www.microux.com
Posted by DocNo:
s t=www.freebsd.org
:)
>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
Do we really need to throw more hardware at this site? I know that the occasional oopsie has brought the site down, but with the last upgrade as well, people have said its the bandwidth stupid whenever things slow down. I'd like to see some stats like load, mem usage etc
Dual P][266 sounds formidable enough. I could see the use for more ram to handle simutaneuous accesses, but that much more CPU?
the new server loads just the top banner ads, and then kinda slows down. Maybe a bit of lighter fluid in the ol' fdd?
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Funny, I wonder what this 4-way Xeon box behind me is running then....
... 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.
You know, it occured to me that this might
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
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Servlets are good because
:)
- 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...
-Stu
Yes it does. Ask Paul. 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.
W.A.S.T.E.
Oh, bugger it, Paul is at originative.co.uk , not originative.com. Still, he'll probably be thankful to not be spam-botted.
--
W.A.S.T.E.
W.A.S.T.E.
Hey Rob;
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
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Anyone worth their salt knows that web benchmarks mean kak all - especially when they're designed to differentiate between software. What's important to web software these days is functionality - that's the main reason Apache is more popular than IIS - and staying that way. It's also the reason software like WebSite Pro from O'Reilly can survive in the face of the free IIS.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
[5:57pm] mcope@orion (~): telnet 206.170.14.76 80
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
"L'IT c'est moi!"
...still not finished...groan...I wonder what the bandwidth of the link is?
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Ack.. www.slashdot.org is slashdotting www.slashdot.org's new slashdot server.
I'd guess it's transfering at 5, 6 bytes per second tops.
But it works.
Shit...
Why RedHat? WHY? WHY!?!?
Damnit, damnit, Sonofabitch.
/me points to the 3rd link from the top on the left hand side of the page, reading "code"
http://slashdot.org/code.shtml
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
i like i like #)
I've liked Lignux (or LiGNUx or liGNUx) but GLinux is good. We really need a way to avoid the kernel/whole system confusion and both 'Linux' (nonono _DEBIAN_ 2.1, _LINUX_ 2.2!) and GNU/Linux (easy and catchy - not) is bad. Why didn't RMS go for one of the 'GliNUx' or 'LiGNUx'?
I have 100 of these things running....
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"!
After all, Eddie was designed for doing HA/HP clustering of web servers. Use the bigger iron to handle the MySQL database engine and web serving and then have the old box handle just web serving.
I'd bet that would handle a hell of a lot more than it would by itself....
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
wget -r
works wonders too
Grroooorrr!
...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.
yeah actually FreeBSD does support SMP. good job with the facts, moron.
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
I work for a company that gets over 5 million hits a day on ONE Sun Ultra 2 with 2*200MHz, 1Gb Ram, and 11Gb HDD, with Apache, Oracle, and Netscape serving pages (you have to love corp. politics)
/. gets on a dual 266 is beyond me. Especialy since you are running only apache.
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
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.
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.
-- Chad
Do 100 bytes a second constitute the /. effect?
Pinging 206.170.14.76 with 32 bytes of data:
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
SB.
You Bastards!
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
I'd be interested. I have a FreeBSD 3.1 box, and a Linux 2.2 box sitting here. For the most part, they peacefully co-exist. (Except for the occasional, "Where the f**k does that config file live in BSD?!?"
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.)
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
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.
Connection Timed out over here
Bumm*ED*
I came. I saw. I coded.
yeah southpark!
--Rob
I doubt that I am going to convince a perl hacker to switch to java, but I gotta try:
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
--Rob
I am not going to speak for perl, because I don't care for it too much, and don't claim to be any sort of perl guru.
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.
--Rob
It's been open source for a long time. Look to your left, click on "code".
----------------------
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
I guess redhat must compile everything with gcc's -WorkStation flag, "optimizing" it for workstations.
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.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
Rob,
:-(
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?
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Doesn't support alpha? I guess thats why there is a little star on the Walnut Creek CD Set that says: "Now with DEC Alpha SMP support, and ELF binaries!"
--
Yes, you CAN slashdot slashdot.
Would that make the new hostname www.slashdot.org.slashdotted.new.slashdot.org?
Or not?
"Although we may build the technology that we define as tools, we must be vigilant that those tools do not define us."
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
mcox.com - Useful Information re: IT, Running, Fitness, Finance, or Ann Arbor!
well, /.'ed the new /. I suppose we should have been a little easier on it on it's first day, but ...
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
-- Word of the day: Percussive maintenance is the fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it wo
OTOH maybe he ought to give out his root passwd and let the
Just kidding
-- Word of the day: Percussive maintenance is the fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it wo
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.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
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
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
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 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 from here. I'd post a traceroute, but I think it is pretty clear that the problem lies in the server somewhere...
Hmm, slow for me too...about 650ms response vs. 150 for triton, and I'm on a university link.
We get so much "Linux rulezzzzz" and "FreeBSD is for euro-wimpzzz" here on Slashdot. I'd like to see unbiased benchmarks (ha!) comparing Linux 2.0, Linux 2.2, and FreeBSD 3.1.
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
cpeterso
According to t his Mindcraft Report, NT+IIS running with 256 MB was faster than your Linux+Apache running with 512 MB!
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.
cpeterso
I tried several times in a row and could not
connect at all.