Can one server handle 300Mbps of traffic? - GoFuckYourself.com

xlogger · 02-10-2006, 08:40 AM

Is it possible for one server to handle 300Mbps of traffic?

Check the below server spec. You think it can handle all 300?

Intel Xeon 3.0GHz (single) with 3Gb DDR Ram.
1000 Mbit uplink

chupachups · 02-10-2006, 08:41 AM

I would surely doubt it. Whats disks have you got on it?

TurboAngel · 02-10-2006, 08:41 AM

What's your ICQ#? I need to chat with you.

xlogger · 02-10-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chupachups

I would surely doubt it. Whats disks have you got on it?

Disks? You mean dive?

1x 300Gb SATA Drive

Mugshot · 02-10-2006, 08:53 AM

doubtful or let's say not recommended....

chupachups · 02-10-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlogger

Disks? You mean dive?

1x 300Gb SATA Drive

Yes exactly

No, I doubt it. Raided or with SATA2.. maybe...
What will you use it for? 300mps is alot of BW...

marketsmart · 02-10-2006, 09:01 AM

steady 300 megs, no. bursty 300 megs, doubtful. imho you would end up with so much latency that the end user experience would suck. i think anything over 100 megs of steady traffic should be load balenced between mutiple servers....

fuzebox · 02-10-2006, 09:01 AM

Yes.

Of course the term "300Mbps of traffic" is completely meaningless and won't help anyone decide if this particular server can handle your needs.

darksoul · 02-10-2006, 09:07 AM

it might if its static content

MickeyG · 02-10-2006, 09:09 AM

hardware raid system with a nice size onboard cache. it'll work.

CS-Jay · 02-10-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksoul

it might if its static content

exactly, what kind of content is it?

L0stMind · 02-10-2006, 09:53 AM

We have a dual opteron w/scsi raid machine that have pushed a constant 580mbps at a load of 2.80 for nearly 2 days straight.

Your machine may be able to spike to 300mbps, but I doubt it could sustain it. Sata, even SataII don't really perform as well as people think.However, if you have a decent amount of ram and static content... well, lots of variables.

If you are pushing that much traffic, you gotta be making money, so why mess around, load balance across a couple machines... words like raid, scsi, ram, lvs are your friends.

Doctor Dre · 02-10-2006, 09:56 AM

If it's all static content, in a burst, MAYBE. But you should definitly get another 2-3 more like this if you want the user of your website not to be pissed at the load speed

Brad Mitchell · 02-10-2006, 10:00 AM

With a 15k rpm SCSI raid 0 I am sure it could do it, and 4gb of ram. However, it could probably only push that much if we were talking about distributing media files and not pics and thumbs.

Brad

IWantU_Jeff · 02-10-2006, 10:12 AM

Those specs...steady? I would get a load balanced solution over a few servers.
You can hit me up on ICQ if you want to go over anything, deal with hosting also so might be able to help. good luck to ya!

FiReC · 02-10-2006, 10:20 AM

depends on what you are serving, a much shittier box with like a gig of ram, linux and apache 2 can serve images at 300mbits. put php on the box and hellz no 300mbit aint happening

e5hosting · 02-10-2006, 11:00 AM

Yes, Linux RedHat Enterprise ES could handle up to 750Mpbs on one server (with some premium hardware) before you start running into limitations.

Anthony

Marshal · 02-10-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

With a 15k rpm SCSI raid 0 I am sure it could do it, and 4gb of ram. However, it could probably only push that much if we were talking about distributing media files and not pics and thumbs.

Brad

i couldn't agree more!

but only if CPU could handle that! :D

rowan · 02-10-2006, 11:43 AM

It's a moot point having a fast HD if the heads are having to madly seek all over the place... you can count the days before it fails dramatically.

BTW even though the SATA 1 interface can push through 1.5Gbps the drive itself most likely cannot.

If you're serving a limited set of content (say only a gig or two) then a file system in RAM would be one option to consider.

Personally I would go for the multiple server option, if you're pushing out that rate of data then it's probably something reasonably important; what happens when the server fails?

MSV · 02-10-2006, 12:17 PM

If you have 2 drives and spread the load amongst them, yes, you can push 300Megabits on 1 server.

We have, in the past, had servers pushing 600Mbps steadily, for weeks and months on end.

They were equipped with 4xHDD's, 4GB RAM, and Single Xeon CPU's.

02-10-2006, 08:40 AM	#1
xlogger Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: NY Posts: 9,507	Can one server handle 300Mbps of traffic? Is it possible for one server to handle 300Mbps of traffic? Check the below server spec. You think it can handle all 300? Intel Xeon 3.0GHz (single) with 3Gb DDR Ram. 1000 Mbit uplink __________________ ---------- XLOGGER [REFLECTED] [OH]

02-10-2006, 08:41 AM	#2
chupachups Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sweden/Spain you sum bitch! Posts: 6,576	I would surely doubt it. Whats disks have you got on it? __________________

02-10-2006, 08:53 AM	#5
Mugshot Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: pluginteractive.com Posts: 169	doubtful or let's say not recommended.... __________________ Larry Get 1 Week FREE @ Pluginteractive.com ICQ 266166309 \| larry[at]pluginteractive.com

02-10-2006, 09:07 AM	#9
darksoul Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: /root/ Posts: 4,997	it might if its static content __________________ 1337 5y54\|)m1n: 157717888 BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN Cambooth

02-10-2006, 09:53 AM	#12
L0stMind Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancity Posts: 1,681	We have a dual opteron w/scsi raid machine that have pushed a constant 580mbps at a load of 2.80 for nearly 2 days straight. Your machine may be able to spike to 300mbps, but I doubt it could sustain it. Sata, even SataII don't really perform as well as people think.However, if you have a decent amount of ram and static content... well, lots of variables. If you are pushing that much traffic, you gotta be making money, so why mess around, load balance across a couple machines... words like raid, scsi, ram, lvs are your friends. __________________ http://cashcore.com - Make Money. http://ezprovider.net - Hosting.

02-10-2006, 08:41 AM	#3
TurboAngel H.B.I.C. Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NC Posts: 30,122	What's your ICQ#? I need to chat with you.

02-10-2006, 09:01 AM	#7
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	steady 300 megs, no. bursty 300 megs, doubtful. imho you would end up with so much latency that the end user experience would suck. i think anything over 100 megs of steady traffic should be load balenced between mutiple servers....

02-10-2006, 09:01 AM	#8
fuzebox making it rain Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: seattle Posts: 22,266	Yes. Of course the term "300Mbps of traffic" is completely meaningless and won't help anyone decide if this particular server can handle your needs.

02-10-2006, 09:09 AM	#10
MickeyG Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: South Florida Posts: 4,134	hardware raid system with a nice size onboard cache. it'll work.

02-10-2006, 10:00 AM	#14
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,813	With a 15k rpm SCSI raid 0 I am sure it could do it, and 4gb of ram. However, it could probably only push that much if we were talking about distributing media files and not pics and thumbs. Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

02-10-2006, 10:12 AM	#15
IWantU_Jeff Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Cold Cold Montreal Posts: 2,092	Those specs...steady? I would get a load balanced solution over a few servers. You can hit me up on ICQ if you want to go over anything, deal with hosting also so might be able to help. good luck to ya! __________________ Jeffy B. ICQ: 463.180.179

02-10-2006, 10:20 AM	#16
FiReC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Land o Nubiles Posts: 2,350	depends on what you are serving, a much shittier box with like a gig of ram, linux and apache 2 can serve images at 300mbits. put php on the box and hellz no 300mbit aint happening __________________ www.nubilefilms.com \| www.nubiles.net \| www.anilos.com \| tubescript.nubiles.net \| icq4162727

02-10-2006, 11:00 AM	#17
e5hosting e5hosting.com - Get your server today - Proud GFY Advertiser Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 1,065	Yes, Linux RedHat Enterprise ES could handle up to 750Mpbs on one server (with some premium hardware) before you start running into limitations. Anthony

02-10-2006, 11:43 AM	#19
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	It's a moot point having a fast HD if the heads are having to madly seek all over the place... you can count the days before it fails dramatically. BTW even though the SATA 1 interface can push through 1.5Gbps the drive itself most likely cannot. If you're serving a limited set of content (say only a gig or two) then a file system in RAM would be one option to consider. Personally I would go for the multiple server option, if you're pushing out that rate of data then it's probably something reasonably important; what happens when the server fails?

02-10-2006, 12:17 PM	#20
MSV Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 449	If you have 2 drives and spread the load amongst them, yes, you can push 300Megabits on 1 server. We have, in the past, had servers pushing 600Mbps steadily, for weeks and months on end. They were equipped with 4xHDD's, 4GB RAM, and Single Xeon CPU's.