my question. We host around 40 websites that have hundreds of pictures. I have 60gigs dedicated to pictures alone. since we are getting more clients I want to get a bigger hard drive just for the pictures. Since my boss is obssesed with user access times, as in users accessing the pictures on the web on their end, he thinks getting a bigger hard drive will slow down the server and hence slow down access time serving out the pictures to end users. I guess what I'm saying is does a bigger hard drive slow down a website?
Let me know if you need clarification I wasn't sure how to word this.
I've recently moved server and since then I've had a problem with the main site I administrate. The problem is that when I'm moving around the site I frequently get long lag times between clicking on a link and getting to that next page. This isn't slow transfer speeds - the status bar shows 'waiting for xxxx' for sometimes 15 to 20 seconds. The site makes quite heavy use of a MySQL database and associated forum software.
It was suggested I did some tracerts to see what that showed. The thing is I don't know what the significance of tracert results are! It seems to show lots of timeouts - but then it shows lots of timeouts when I try it on other sites as well, which don't have the same lag problems.
I have no reasons to think it's my host, who are really good and responsive. But my ISP says it's nothing to do with them either. If the routing is a problem, where lies the responsibility for selecting the routes between me and the server to my site?
I'm hoping this is just the link between me and my site, as other site users don't seem to have had a problem yet. I'll post a couple of tracert results in case anyone is able to advise me on what their significance might be.
For some reasons I cant access any of my accounts on my dedicated server via FTP. It simply times out when it tried to display the directories.
Heres a log from FileZila...
Code: Status:Resolving address of testdomain.com Status:Connecting to 64.237.58.43:21... Status:Connection established, waiting for welcome message... Response:220---------- Welcome to Pure-FTPd [TLS] ---------- Response:220-You are user number 3 of 50 allowed. Response:220-Local time is now 19:39. Server port: 21. Response:220-This is a private system - No anonymous login Response:220-IPv6 connections are also welcome on this server. Response:220 You will be disconnected after 15 minutes of inactivity. Command:USER testaccount Response:331 User testaccount OK. Password required Command:PASS ******** Response:230-User testaccount has group access to: testaccount Response:230 OK. Current restricted directory is / Command:SYST Response:215 UNIX Type: L8 Command:FEAT Response:211-Extensions supported: Response: EPRT Response: IDLE Response: MDTM Response: SIZE Response: REST STREAM Response: MLST type*;size*;sizd*;modify*;UNIX.mode*;UNIX.uid*;UNIX.gid*;unique*; Response: MLSD Response: ESTP Response: PASV Response: EPSV Response: SPSV Response: ESTA Response: AUTH TLS Response: PBSZ Response: PROT Response:211 End. Status:Connected Status:Retrieving directory listing... Command:PWD Response:257 "/" is your current location Command:TYPE I Response:200 TYPE is now 8-bit binary Command:PASV Response:227 Entering Passive Mode (64,237,58,43,145,153) Command:MLSD Response:150 Accepted data connection Response:226-ASCII Response:226-Options: -a -l Response:226 18 matches total Error:Connection timed out Error:Failed to retrieve directory listing
I have restarted the FTP service serveral times but still It doesnt loads.
We have a video streaming server, sometimes the server gets really slow and when we digg into it, we see that the same ip is trying to download the same file many many times. for example i either run this command
if any of you could give a quick idea on the set up times for dedicated servers from ECATEL
I paid 515 euros 9 days ago, and the server still hasn't been set up (Hardware delivery problems I have been told) and before I ordered, they stated the setup time would be 48 hours.
Is this normal? The last email i received from them was 3 days ago.
I find this completley unproffesional, It is always another few days.
What are your experiences with them? I am utterly dissapointed so far.
In both cases a hacker created email accounts (through cpanel?) and then sent out spam through the webmail system. I don't see on the log where they accessed the cpanel, so I'm thinking they may have done it on another day, or they may have done it using some remote script.
Im very curious. For most of us, we probably wont have to go through it. But how many times does the average customer change their web host in 4 years?
way to keep server times synchronized? All servers are in the same location.
For example, a website has two web servers and one database server. What's the best way to keep the time syncd on all servers (they should be the exact same time really)?
I'm looking into knownhost and they offer twice the bandwidth in their California option for the same money. Jay from known host said I should pick the one with the best ping times. I'd like to put the information here so someone might perhaps tell me what my best choice is.
I'll put the stats here and then if you could tell me which one is better (Texas vs. California) that would be great.
But if you think that the times between the two are only marginal (both real good), then could you help me decide about getting double the bandwidth for the same price.
I know nothing of course, but the two data centers look like their both giving great speeds (Texas being better though). But perhaps both speeds are great. If that's the case, can anyone tell me why someone would not take the higher bandwidth offer?
Thanks, I really appreciate any help with this!
Here is the info...
Texas (ping):
PING 65.99.213.7 (65.99.213.7) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 65.99.213.7: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=1.26 ms 64 bytes from 65.99.213.7: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=1.35 ms 64 bytes from 65.99.213.7: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=1.41 ms 64 bytes from 65.99.213.7: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=1.22 ms 64 bytes from 65.99.213.7: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=1.51 ms .............
<IfModule worker.c> StartServers 100 MaxClients 500 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxRequestsPerChild 100 </IfModule> Here is what is in the /var/log/httpd/error_log file before it dies:
Code: [Wed Jul 01 18:06:32 2009] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 8 children, there are 98 idle, and 108 total children [Wed Jul 01 18:08:17 2009] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 8 children, there are 74 idle, and 76 total children [Wed Jul 01 18:08:18 2009] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 16 children, there are 63 idle, and 63 total children [Wed Jul 01 18:08:19 2009] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 32 children, there are 79 idle, and 79 total children [Wed Jul 01 18:11:36 2009] [info] server seems busy, (you may need to increase StartServers, or Min/MaxSpareServers), spawning 8 children, there are 93 idle, and 108 total children
About the middle of the month I started to get SMTP service down messages from a service monitor site I had signed up with. Initially I wasn't concerned but I started to get at least one notice a day. I decided to monitor the server a bit more closely so I setup a virtual appliance on my home server to monitor SMTP response times a bit more frequently -- I let the monitoring application run for a few days to gather data and noticed an unusual trend.
SMTP response times would spike dramatically during business hours -- up to almost 19 seconds at some times. However after business hours and on the weekends response times would return to normal.
My mail volume is really low for my VPS so I don't think it is the problem -- I even ran a mail stress test and pushed close to 500 messages through in 30 minutes (more than I normally get in a day) and I didn't see any SMTP response time spikes. I have also set up monitors to watch some other sites I have running on shared servers with other providers and do not see any unusual SMTP response issues with them at all.
system information is below:
Linux OS: CENTOS Kernel Version: 2.6.18-028stab053.4 Hardware Information: VPS (1500MB RAM) Exim Version: Exim version 4.69 #1 built 16-Mar-2009 16:41:00 Spamd Version: SpamAssassin Server version 3.2.4 running on Perl 5.8.8
Has anyone else noticed the support responses from knownhost are taking longer and have less detail and not actually solving the problem on the first email? The service has been great so far but I find they are no longer going the extra mile in their responses?
To me, this sounds really strange and really unrelated, hopefully it will ring a bell in somebody-who-reads-this' mind...
After enabled suexec in my webserver (litespeed), every day at two regular times, I notice a ton of crond processes on many different users. This slows down my entire server until they go away and it must be resolved.
I have only recently noticed that it is infact crond processes causing this and I hope I have finally found the correct issue. It causes a chain reaction of events and so I have slowly had to crawl up the chain to find the root of the issue... (high iowait, high swapping, high memory, normal processes taking up more cpu%, etc. etc. ........ crond processes)
I have checked every single file in /var/spool/cron and none of the cron jobs run remotely near these times (except some that run every minute/15 minutes for example). Also, I don't understand how so many crond processes could be made at once. I will make a better rough estimate when it next happens.
I've checked the average page download time that the Googlebot reports in Google Webmaster Tools and, from what I've seen elsewhere, I think the number is good -- less than 200 milliseconds. However, my pages are compressed and small (>1.5K). This gives me a download time of ~7500 bytes/sec for the Googlebot.
what kind of page download speeds do others get with Googlebot? What's typical/good/bad?
httpd.config changed since my server was hacked but they can not control it , they just delete db from mysq and they can not bypass direcoty
i upgrade to 2.2.8 apache i make full security
but still i get strange problem that i found the httpd.config changed to make the .ht work by override option i make this: <Directory "/"> Options all AllowOverride none </Directory>
but after day i get it changed to be: <Directory "/"> Options all AllowOverride all </Directory>
i installed mod_security and after a day i get the httpd.config was changed to make mod_secrity not work and also to make :allowoverride all!
i think there is way for attacker to alter httpd.config
i made a lot of security : 1.disable aldot of php function including decode_64base
2.insttal apf
3.mod_security with good rules
4.chmod httpd.config with 600 and i get it changed after a day and i made it 700
I recently signed up (just yesterday) with this company on the grounds of pricing and reviews. I especially noted the fact that they respond "in minutes" well. I have opened 2 tickets thusfar:
first: Created On: 15 Jul 2007 04:54 PM Last Update: 15 Jul 2007 06:06 PM
second: reated On: 16 Jul 2007 02:25 AM
I am new to the VPS hosting game. Are support times generally longer than with shared hosting? Or am I just encountering some bad luck? To me, you should want to be impressing newly registered customers. Especially concerning support and when the client has stated VPS is new to him.
I bought a VPS package hosted at Hosting-IE from someone I knew, since they were not going to be able to use it. Its a linux VPS, and it's done me well. Based on that I decided to purchase my own package, a Windows VPS.
After payment, I messaged support about a broken auto response email they sent out, then asked how long server setup time should be. They responded 1-2 working days. Fine.
Well, its been 7 days since then. I'm 1/4 of the way through the month I've paid for, and still no VPS. I messaged them back asking for my server or a refund, no responses since then.
My previous host set up my dedicated box within a working day, and that involved setting up the hardware too. Over a week for a VPS is too long.
Is my experience with Hosting-IE abnormal or should I be demanding my loot back? Is there any other VPS provider out there that can offer me similar stats at the same price as Hosting-IE?
for a simple package setup, this has gone on for far too long.
Some of the e-mails I send are received several times by my recipients. I use Outlook Express. I send the e-mail only once but some people are complaining that they receive the same message as many as 10 times sometimes. Do you know what can be causing it?
My Nameserver and FTP went down 3 times for the past 1 week. Each time they went down, i need to restart them using WebHostManager. Is there a setting problem on my server as I hv been getting this error msg email from cpanel every day:
IMPORTANT: Do not ignore this email.The hostname (server.etrendstudio.com) resolves to 208.69.32.130. It should resolve to 66.228.124.51. Please be sure to correct /etc/hosts as well as the 'A' entry in zone file for the domain.
**************************************************** However, when i check my cpanel setup is stated as follows:
Adding an A entry for nameserver ns1.etrendstudio.com
Found your nameserver to be: ns1.etrendstudio.com Found your domain name to be: etrendstudio.com Found your nameserver name to be: ns1 Found your nameserver ip to be: 66.228.124.51
If this looks correct, Found your nameserver to be: ns2.etrendstudio.com Found your domain name to be: etrendstudio.com Found your nameserver name to be: ns2 Found your nameserver ip to be: 75.126.115.78 If this looks correct,
**************************************** IS THERE A SETTING PROBLEM?
Every request is getting processed 3 times. In other words, if I point my browser to the URL of an image hosted on this server, it generates 3 lines in the access log each time I refresh the page.
If I point it to a script which logs something to a file, it logs it 3 times, showing it's run all 3 times.
I haven't touched the httpd.conf or any other configuration. Any idea what could cause this?
We have a product which is web based and uses sessions for everyone logged in and when they timeout the Session_OnEnd is supposed to fire and delete records from a table which stores some data for the user.
The problem is that the Session_OnEnd is not firing and therefore not clearing the table everytime the user times out.
The server: Windows 2003 Service Pack 1 (I know there has been a problem with SP2 with the session_onEnd not firing but this does not effect SP1) The whole site is running behind a SSL. We have switched this off and it still doesnt fire. The site is written in classic ASP.
We have over another 200 clients with the same setup but they are not suffering from the same problems and I have come to the end of my knowledge about IIS (as I am a web developer and not server admin) and where to look.
I have a single domain that covers a popular reality tv show. For about 2 months out of the year for an hour a week we get bombarded with traffic.
While that's happening we are having http fail every couple minutes and we appear down.
Now because it's for such a short time, it doesn't make sense to set up multiple servers or even upgrade to a larger server (would you upgrade for 10 hours a year of issues?). I figure it would cost another server at 200 a month for 12 months just to save a little downtime. Doesn't make sense.
However, what settings could I change, what could I manage, etc... It's a dedicated server, and the site in question is a static frontpage with some php includes and a wordpress blog that gets most of the traffic.
I regularly have DNS issues with some of my sites hosted with a specific host... At random sites, the urls done resolve and I get a DNS error. Just to find out that a few hours later it loads again without issues...
I always thought it had something to do with my ISP... My host says that there's nothing wrong with their DNS. However, I asked a few people now and it seems they're having DNS problems too sometimes when accessing the problematic urls...
