I run a small streaming/cdn service and I'm looking at how best to utilize my bandwidth. Here's the scoop:
I have a 1/4 rack and 2 gbit drops from my provider. Currently I am running a single server connected to 1 gbit port - nothing fancy. Business is good so I am about to add another server. As this location is already the backup/failover for my primary colo (different location/provider), I am interested in playing with aggregation options.
I have used 802.3ad in the past, so that was my first choice. I asked my provider if they can trunk my ports on their switch - unfortunately they refused (they only allow it above a certain commit).
So...do I have any other options for aggregation? It's pure mb/sec throughput that I am looking for, rather than failover. I have the rackspace/power/etc to colo my own switch or router, I'm just curious if there is an effective alternative.
I thought with 802.3ad I could aggregate the links and thus turn a 3x100 megabit pipes to one 300 meg pipe. The problem is when using the default options (and layer2 xmit mode) I only get the bandwidth of a single connection and I see no other traffic on the other two. Here is output from /proc/net/bonding/bond0:
MII Status: up MII Polling Interval (ms): 100 Up Delay (ms): 0 Down Delay (ms): 0
802.3ad info LACP rate: slow Active Aggregator Info: Aggregator ID: 2 Number of ports: 3 Actor Key: 9 Partner Key: 3 Partner Mac Address: 00:1e:f6:xx:xx:xx
Slave Interface: eth0 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:1e:8c:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 1
Slave Interface: eth2 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:04:23:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 1
Slave Interface: eth3 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:04:23:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 1 Basically it works in that I get a connection but its no different from being on a regular 100/100 connection. Downloading files my machine from completely different networks always only goes out one connection. I don't even see any received/sent packets from the other two interfaces.
When I tell it to use layer3+4 via the xmit_hash_policy paramter when loading the module IE:
It seems to work as expected except it looks like all incomming traffic comes in on the same interface and its not much different from a normal load balancing (except from a single IP address). I will stick to this method if I have no choice as I don't really care about the download all that much and it seems to do a good job.
Bonding Mode: IEEE 802.3ad Dynamic link aggregation Transmit Hash Policy: layer3+4 (1) MII Status: up MII Polling Interval (ms): 100 Up Delay (ms): 0 Down Delay (ms): 0
802.3ad info LACP rate: slow Active Aggregator Info: Aggregator ID: 2 Number of ports: 3 Actor Key: 9 Partner Key: 3 Partner Mac Address: 00:1e:f6:xx:xx:xx
Slave Interface: eth0 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:1e:8c:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 2
Slave Interface: eth2 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:04:23:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 2
Slave Interface: eth3 MII Status: up Link Failure Count: 0 Permanent HW addr: 00:04:23:xx:xx:xx Aggregator ID: 2
My understanding is that with layer2 it should just be one big fat pipe. IE: packets are fragmented and thus even a single connection should be able to sustain 300 megabits (if the other end could provide it). It seems like it just doesn't use my other interfaces at all when doing this.
I moved my wordpress blog from blog.domain.info to domain.net i own both the tld domains. google search already had the posts from old url indexed. if someone clicks in it it shows 404 error. how do i redirect the traffic from old url to new url via htaccess. I dont want duplicate post on google. how to make the transition? i am confused with many online articles about htaccess redirect.
One of my favorite web tools, dnsreport dot com, has gone pay only apparently
Is there any other service that is as close to advanced with the nice breakdown it does? Perhaps some tool I can install on one of my own servers?
I know the super skilled will says oh just run this, that and the other command line tool for the same info but I really liked the way they did it and how it explained the details.
I'm on a shared host right now and my server doesn't have the mod_auth_mysql installed. I was wondering if there were any additional alternatives for authenticating content using information from my CMS Users table? If I posted in the wrong forum, I apologize in advance as this topic could go either way, programming or server configuration. Thank you for your valued time.
Purchased a 3-month test period on a dedicated server a few days back but directadmin failed to boot from the outset, support wiped everything and reinstalled onto another partition which worked fine for about 12hrs.
Now I can't even FTP, tried rebooting from service centre etc. nada! probably hardware failure, Prices seemed too good to be true , glad I didn't move my entire site across [active forum with over 10,000 members] as the response time seems to be in days rather than hours.
Any reliable alternatives offering similar packages for similar money?
I have been using hostingfest for a few months now, I had no issues and was very happy as they offered 1000mb space and 10GB b/w, also 3 sql 2005 dbs included and its space subject to the total space, so no restriction on db space.
Since yesterday it has started to bother me, the server is down! no reply from the support staff, which is unusual as they are very fast otherwise.
So i am thinking of a replacement now... cannot afford my site to be down for long
[url]
i have the basic fest plan, if someone can suggest me a good alternative??
Main requirement:
atleast 3 domains, 3 sql 2005 dbs (not lite) asp.net 2 framework and about 10GB bandwidth
I just found out that I cannot edit the text in the templates provided by RVSiteBuilder for my clients. Only clients can edit the text after they sign up with me. Which defeats the whole purpose for my needs. Are there any other programs similar to RVSiteBuilder where I can edit the text in the templates and not just pictures?
Please give me the difference. Colo in carrier hotel, we can choose our preferred network provider, but should we do that if we cannot have our own tech in datacenter? How about the supporting service from carrier hotel? Just general question, cause I dont address exactly which facility.
And the second would be more expensive? Saying the same number of rack, amount of bandwidth... Who is providing IP addresses then?
We were looking at a server on Rackspace for $300/month, but I wanted to see if there are any reputable companies which can provide a similar service for a bit less money.
Technically we could go with RackSpace, but there's got to be a service just like RackSpace but costing less? Our site only receives approximately 500-600 unique visitors per day, but once every two months or so we get a huge spike in traffic. Our current hosting provider has us on a VPS plan (we pay $80/mo) and today the server crashed because of a huge amount of traffic. We run an e-commerce site with many SQL queries involved, etc. I'm looking for a well established company.
First: Of course Crissic had some advantages as well, they were always nice, they let you do a lot, have a nice client area and so on. In fact, Crissic would be very good, they just need to change their servers or server provider to more reliable things.
I need a reliable hosting that servers doesnt have problems all day. I need to resell stuff and I need online websites to do that, as well as I need online websites to gain money from affiliate networks. Crissic cannot fulfill this, in less than 2 weeks since I am customer there were a lot of downtimes ranging from minutes to hours, there were hardware failures including an 7 days old backup (at least with 15% redeem), somehow an domain couldnt connect at all (I guess some nameserver or DNS error?) and now after I was awake and checked my websites the server does not seem to handle sessions anymore and produces errors on a few of my websites. This hosting ruins all my business and I cannot keep them doing that!
I am searching for reliable alternatives now but with a cheap price and good specifications like Crissic had. Here is exactly what I need:
* Reliable Hosting, NO Downtimes every day. NO Downtimes every 2nd day as well. * Minimum Diskspace: 3 GB * Minimum Traffic: 30+ GB * UNLIMITED Add-On Domains. DNS entrys should be automatic and it MUST be free, had some hosters before that provided unlimited add-on domains but they charged 1$ for each add-on domain then. * Unlimited FTP-Accounts * 200+ subdomains * 200+ e-mail accounts * PHP4 / 5 + MySQL and GD Library * Cron-Jobs * ALL CPanel Functions like on Crissic (at least as much as possible, I need it) * Price Range between 5-10$, but there should be better hosting packages available for 10-20$ - WITH Upgrade possibility * No Contract, I do not want to get stuck for 24 month with an hoster * Good Support is required! * PayPal Payment possible * Audio/Video + Flash/Shockwave support and/or if I have additional requirements like for an video hosting script, the hoster should be able to install it and not charge more than 5$ for it * Money-back guarantee would be great since I do not want to be disappointed by hosters that promises everything but keep nothing * DAILY Backups
I send out almost 50 emails a day from a PHP program on my web site.
My web host wrote an email complaining to me.
Should I:
a) take their advice (and if so, do I need an SMTP server and how do I get one set up?)
b) change web hosts?
Here is the email from them:
Hi there,
Thank you for contacting us.
Please note that the script is being abused via a web browser to send out mail. Please refrain to use the PHP mail() function as it is deprecated and vulnerable to abuse.
We could possibly suggest that you take a look at using SwiftMailer which is well documented and supported.
We have commented out all of the mail() function calls on your site.
I've read a lot about XS4ALL and other datacenters in .nl lately.
As much as I know by know XS4ALL have a superior network over there - dont they?
I did a lot of research to find some Resellers/Hosters who are able to offer dedicated servers at one of XS4ALL's datacenters - but without luck.... My inquiry about dedicated servers directly at XS4ALL is still pending tho....
Do you know of any Resellers/Hosters who can provide dedicated servers at XS4ALL DC's? Or can you think of any QUALITY alternatives?
As I'm handling worldwide customers a _good_ routing is a must have.
I know there are a lot of hosters outside - but I'm really looking for quality bandwith without any troubles (ecatel?)
dedicated server for my PHP/MySQL browser game. I've been working with CentOS 5/cPanel on my current server and I have no reason to change as it works very nicely. However I can only push 1500tb traffic per month with my current server and ideally I want to be able to push up to 5000-6000tb. Does anyone know of any reliable hosts with good uptime that provide high bandwidth packages such as FDCservers 100mbit Unmetered servers. I recently requested a custom quote from FDC but they never got back to me, would you recommend them?
we're using IIS 5.0 which doesn't have any flexible support for rewriting URLs which include parameters (AFAIK, anyway). We're currently testing an ISAPI Rewrite Plugin, which emulates the syntax and behaviour of mod_rewrite, which is why I felt this forum category to be the most appropriate for this post.
Our URLs at the moment look like:-
[url]where 'hg' is an instance of a key. In this particular example, we wish to rewrite our URL to read [url]homegarden' where 'homegarden' is a value of that respective key.
Since the value 'homegarden' isn't present in our current URL, we need some way to associate this value with it's relevant key, by mapping one to another. The ideal solution in this case would be to use RewriteMap, however the ISAPI plugin doesn't support this directive.
One other solution, that I've seen here is to use the 'homegarden' value as the key instead. However, due to the lack of flexibility of our system, this isn't possible.
Another method of achieving this is to hard-code a RewriteRule for every instance of a key, but this solution has obvious performance drawbacks (we have around 400 categories)
So, at the moment I'm out of ideas, which is why I thought I'd try and rack your brains for suggestions. An ideal scenario would be to use something like RewriteCond (which is supported by the plugin) to attach a file which would contain the key/value map.
any alternatives to pjirc / jwirc / jpilot and mibbit tried all 4 seems jpilot is one of the best but the order page puts me off when its asking what bank my card with.
anyone know of any other webbased irc i missed off my list apart from those above and cgirc
I currently have hosting with Site5 (started back before all the overselling), and although my sites are very low in traffic and don't take up much space, I am running up against their 25,000 per site inode limit, due to my hosting a Gallery2 photo album on one of the sites (as I understand, the base install of Gallery2 uses 14,000 inodes alone. Due to how my album is integrated with the rest of the site, it would require hours and hours to switch to something besides Gallery2). All the sites together have used 17 GB of bandwidth so far this month, although much of that has been me uploading stuff to one of the sites to set it up.
Here are my sites:
- Site#1 is a family site, with family photos and a Wordpress blog. Very low traffic (a handful of visits a day), but lots of photos. Inodes not a problem for now (I'm at about 13,000), as unlike one of the other sites, I was able to switch to Zenphoto from Gallery2 pretty easily.
- Site#2 is the newest and fastest growing. It is a site for a small community of people who play a particular online computer game. It runs Drupal, and has about 60 members now, but 5-10 have been joining a day. Most online at one time has been 10. I get anywhere from 30-60 visits a day, but growing. The site uses about 150 MB of storage right now, and this will grow. No photo albums here.
- Site#3 (running Joomla and Gallery2) is for my own gaming group of 8 people that play the above computer game together each week online. Low traffic, but this is the site with the inode problem, as I post screenshots in Gallery2 after each session. Around 25,000 inodes, and 6.5 GB of storage used on the server.
- Site#4 is my wedding site, running on Wordpress. It only gets a handful of visits each day, and will get almost none after the wedding in mid September. No photo album here.
- Site#5 is my fiance's site (running Joomla), which she has pretty much not touched in a year and I doubt anyone visits, but I'm too much of a coward to take down.
With that in mind, I'm wondering what my best solution would be: - Switch to a VPS, and if so, what kind and who? - Switch to a different shared host with a higher inode limit - Stay with Site5 and take the time to farm out the photo album somewhere off the site, or to another program like Zenphoto with a lower footprint.
I'm a tech-geek wannabe and willing to learn. I'm paying about $10 a month (I think) and could probably go as high as $30 or so.
Currently I have DNS as well as IIS configured on the same server. I am using host headers to seperate the sites on IIS. My question is how do I link my DNS to the website residing on IIS? My DNS server set (I can ping it from the internet) and I think I have IIS configured right, but I must be missing something?
I have a .swf file that I directly linked to digg. How can I redirect that specific file to a different page/server to relieve some of the pressure from all those users?
any reliable audio hosting service that can offer an *.mp3 - ending link to a file, not the "server.com/folder/4j8uz22ewssw" thing, please? In other words I'm looking for a hosting service with a direct link to an mp3 (just to clear things up, its not copyrighted since I'm the owner of it).
I was wondering: say I have a website where users discuss different articles and when a user wants to discuss a specific article, he/she will be able to link to that article and then say what they have to say.
Certainly, copying and pasting would violate the site's copyright but simply including a little link sounds like a legal alternative. Is it really? Or, technically that would still require me as the webmaster, or the user who posted it to request permission just for linking?
I know nobody would care because it only gives more traffic to the site but legally, would permission be needed?
