What sort of download speeds do you get to your server. (ie downloading a file from a remote location to your server. ftp, wget...)

My speeds are usually between 130-220K/s; slower than I would expect from a dedicated server.

Is it slow? I have nothing to compare it to- what sort of speeds do you all experience?

thanks for any input.

It really all depends on the connection that you have at your location there. The dedicated server could be on a 100mbit connection, but your cable provider probably caps you at 1.5mbps which equals approx 180K per sec.

It's really hard to test unless your on a fast connection. For instance I am on a 5mbit adsl line and always max out on my server at approx 580k per sec.

So if you would like I can test your box speed, drop me a e-mail if you would like..

Thanks, Goose. I am not speaking of downloading a file from my server to my home computer.

I am speaking of downloading a file with my server; No home connection is involved. (My home connection is 28.8 so downloading with it is pretty well useless.

RackShack Server Speed Incoming:
wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
02:25:15 (764.26 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

RackShack Server Speed Outgoing:
wget http://mydomain.com/temp/uumap.tar.Z
02:28:37 (556.78 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]

4150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 50% @ 649.35 KB/s
4200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 51% @ 505.05 KB/s
4250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 51% @ 549.45 KB/s
4300K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 52% @ 568.18 KB/s
4350K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 52% @ 641.03 KB/s
4400K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 53% @ 602.41 KB/s
4450K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 54% @ 549.45 KB/s
4500K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 54% @ 403.23 KB/s
4550K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 55% @ 526.32 KB/s
4600K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 55% @ 1.11 MB/s
4650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 56% @ 561.80 KB/s
4700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 57% @ 450.45 KB/s
4750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 57% @ 568.18 KB/s
4800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 58% @ 480.77 KB/s
4850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 58% @ 1.11 MB/s
4900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 59% @ 510.20 KB/s
4950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 60% @ 467.29 KB/s
5000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 60% @ 574.71 KB/s
5050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 61% @ 490.20 KB/s
5100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 61% @ 1.09 MB/s
5150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 62% @ 495.05 KB/s
5200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 63% @ 480.77 KB/s
5250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 63% @ 595.24 KB/s
5300K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 64% @ 485.44 KB/s
5350K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 64% @ 1.11 MB/s
5400K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 65% @ 490.20 KB/s
5450K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 66% @ 490.20 KB/s
5500K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 66% @ 568.18 KB/s
5550K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 67% @ 515.46 KB/s
5600K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 67% @ 980.39 KB/s
5650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 68% @ 505.05 KB/s
5700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 69% @ 490.20 KB/s
5750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 69% @ 561.80 KB/s
5800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 70% @ 520.83 KB/s
5850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 70% @ 961.54 KB/s
5900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 71% @ 515.46 KB/s
5950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 72% @ 490.20 KB/s
6000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 72% @ 537.63 KB/s
6050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 73% @ 555.56 KB/s
6100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 73% @ 793.65 KB/s
6150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 74% @ 561.80 KB/s
6200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 75% @ 500.00 KB/s
6250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 75% @ 537.63 KB/s
6300K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 76% @ 549.45 KB/s
6350K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 76% @ 769.23 KB/s
6400K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 77% @ 5.96 KB/s
6450K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 78% @ 151.52 KB/s
6500K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 78% @ 438.60 KB/s
6550K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 79% @ 471.70 KB/s
6600K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 79% @ 476.19 KB/s
6650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 80% @ 480.77 KB/s
6700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 81% @ 1.58 MB/s
6750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 81% @ 543.48 KB/s
6800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 82% @ 480.77 KB/s
6850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 82% @ 476.19 KB/s
6900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 83% @ 1.63 MB/s
6950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 84% @ 476.19 KB/s
7000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 84% @ 480.77 KB/s
7050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 85% @ 515.46 KB/s
7100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 85% @ 495.05 KB/s
7150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 86% @ 1.63 MB/s
7200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 87% @ 467.29 KB/s
7250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 87% @ 495.05 KB/s
7300K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 88% @ 500.00 KB/s
7350K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 88% @ 520.83 KB/s
7400K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 89% @ 1.40 MB/s
7450K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 90% @ 485.44 KB/s
7500K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 90% @ 500.00 KB/s
7550K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 91% @ 505.05 KB/s
7600K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 91% @ 520.83 KB/s
7650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 92% @ 4.55 KB/s
7700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 442.48 KB/s
7750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 4.07 MB/s
7800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 458.72 KB/s
7850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 471.70 KB/s
7900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 95% @ 471.70 KB/s
7950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 495.05 KB/s
8000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 2.44 MB/s
8050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 467.29 KB/s
8100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 476.19 KB/s
8150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 98% @ 490.20 KB/s
8200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 480.77 KB/s
8250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 2.03 MB/s
8300K .......... .......... 100% @ 233.28 KB/s

23:56:58 (240.82 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

Off of my T3 at work...

wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
22:47:19 (399.86 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

Hmm, is there a way to check max throughput of my Cogent line?

Why is my speed so slow compared to all of yours.

I'm at exodus.

Hmm, maybe you should try again. Isn't exodus a ton more expensive than Cogent?

Hmm, my numbers not always the same. Is there a way to do it ten times and get the average?

7650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 92% @ 495.05 KB/s
7700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 485.44 KB/s
7750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 450.45 KB/s
7800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 500.00 KB/s
7850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 1.81 MB/s
7900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 95% @ 476.19 KB/s
7950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 495.05 KB/s
8000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 480.77 KB/s
8050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 526.32 KB/s
8100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 1.32 MB/s
8150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 98% @ 471.70 KB/s
8200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 27.50 KB/s
8250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 48.83 MB/s
8300K .......... .......... 100% @ 93.31 KB/s

00:13:14 (432.19 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]


7600K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 91% @ 531.91 KB/s
7650K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 92% @ 480.77 KB/s
7700K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 543.48 KB/s
7750K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 93% @ 555.56 KB/s
7800K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 781.25 KB/s
7850K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 94% @ 581.40 KB/s
7900K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 95% @ 490.20 KB/s
7950K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 549.45 KB/s
8000K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 96% @ 537.63 KB/s
8050K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 769.23 KB/s
8100K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 97% @ 574.71 KB/s
8150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 98% @ 495.05 KB/s
8200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 543.48 KB/s
8250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 561.80 KB/s
8300K .......... .......... 100% @ 641.51 KB/s

00:14:17 (401.12 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221]

i tried the uumap.tar.z and experienced better speeds ~450K/s

e-servers
07:03:53 (1.14 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

rackshack
20:59:50 (765.67 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

fdcservers

06:03:51 (893.43 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

I really should set the time properly :P

Here is some interesting results;

fdcservers to rackshack

21:10:47 (24.46 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221/8520221]


fdcservers to e-servers

07:15:47 (21.00 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221/8520221]


e-servers to rackshack

21:12:45 (938.79 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.2' saved [8520221/8520221]


e-servers to fdcservers

06:16:45 (669.55 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221/8520221]


rackshack to e-servers

07:18:51 (1.78 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.2' saved [8520221/8520221]


rackshack to fdcservers

06:18:14 (1.87 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.2' saved [8520221/8520221]

fdcservers to rackshack
21:10:47 (24.46 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved
fdcservers to e-servers
07:15:47 (21.00 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved
e-servers to fdcservers
06:16:45 (669.55 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved
rackshack to fdcservers
06:18:14 (1.87 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.2' saved


Hmmm... this seems to confirm what was said elsewhere... fdc servers seem to be fast either coming in or going out. Never both. :(

Rackshack & eservers both seem stable, and quick enough. That test was done in the morning?

done about 30 mins prior to you replying to post

From an OC3 in LA:
(10:56:05 <~>) 0 $ wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
--10:56:08-- ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
=> `uumap.tar.Z'
Resolving ftp.uu.net... done.
Connecting to ftp.uu.net[192.48.96.9]:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> SYST ... done. ==> PWD ... done.
==> TYPE I ... done. ==> CWD not needed.
==> PORT ... done. ==> RETR uumap.tar.Z ... done.
Length: 8,520,221 (unauthoritative)

100%[====================================================================================================================>] 8,520,221 665.16K/s ETA 00:00

10:56:25 (665.16 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]
Then w/ fetch a minute or so later:
(10:58:19 <~>) 0 $ fetch ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
Receiving uumap.tar.Z (8520221 bytes): 100%
8520221 bytes transferred in 11.0 seconds (759.66 kBps)

I don't think the speed difference had anything to do with which program I used, I just tried using both for the hell of it :) When the server I just ordered from Webreseller.net gets setup I'll try it from there too.

From webreseller to uunet

14:00:16 (4.71 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

From webreseller to pair

14:01:44 (1.03 MB/s) - `test.rar' saved [30918892/30918892]

From webreseller to Nac

14:14:34 (1.33 MB/s) - `test.rar' saved [6457597/6457597]

I will get more boxes later time for lunch :cartman: ...

Downloading ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z


8520221 bytes received in 2.54 seconds (3.19 MB/s)


Hm... that makes me the 2nd fastest so far ... and it's 4:15 pm EST ... :) But considering I'm further away to ftp.uu.net than webreseller is, I consider myself still faster :D

regards,
-dave

Same here from my Webreseller server to UUNet:

16:17:28 (4.66 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

I am a little disappointed with my results, but I suppose there is not a lot i can do about it.

Originally posted by prime


Hmmm... this seems to confirm what was said elsewhere... fdc servers seem to be fast either coming in or going out. Never both. :(

Rackshack & eservers both seem stable, and quick enough. That test was done in the morning?

Oh man... that's really really bad... you're saying that fdcservers are something like : 10Mbit / 256Kbps speed !! ?? ...
If you get 256Kbps for upload... it's bad... but no sooo sooo bad... but what if you get 256Kbps for download??????? I mean... your clients will upload to server at 1Mb/seg. and all the world will download from the server at 25Kb/seg ?? ... BAD BAD BAD....

Can someone please "expand" about this issue...
I'm buying a server in the next 2 weeks... and...hrm.... I was thinking in fdcservers.... but now..... :eek: :eek2: :eek3:

I dunno... maybe will go to eservers :D (at 40 usd more...)
or RS ... if I can get a no setup server... (my budget is reduced... :bawling: )

Anyway.
Thanks in advance.

Good to hear webreseller is quick! I just ordered a box from them, because, from what I could tell, they're the quickest for their prices, at least on the east coast. (For what I'm doing I need lots of speed :o)

uunet to fdc
18:09:15 (569.28 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]
----------------------------------------------------
uunet to rackshack
ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z

File Size = 8320K
Total bytes received = 8320.5K (100.00%)
Current speed = 6103.57Kb/s, Average D/L speed = 4160.26Kb/s
Time remaining 0 seconds

Resume Supported
Up and Down Arrow keys to scroll display
Ctrl-R to exit and resume later
Ctrl-X to exit without resuming later
Ctrl-L to repaint the screen

Deleting the unwanted files
----------------------------------------------------
fdc to rackshack
680 KB/s
----------------------------------------------------
rackshack to fdc
18:15:01 (1.53 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221/8520221]


fdc is on basic service so on 10 mbit camed port with few other servers

i would say pretty good :)

as far as I know there`ve been couple customers with VERY slow upload speeds but those problems are hardware related as they opted for our lowend boxes which had old deffective network card.

Even if tested on LAN their upload speeds were 20-30Kb .....]





we are currently working on replacing their machines

How do you test the throughput of your line? I want to see if you really get 100 Mbit if you get a line from Cogent. I never really got to test this puppy.

Bummer,

Mine isn't a low-end machine - wanna replace mine too? :P

you need to email us if you have a problem we don`t monitor your speeds so I don`t how much you`re getting

you can measure throughput with MRTG or different networking tools

My speeds are overpage :D

Originally posted by hosticle
Here is some interesting results;

[b]fdcservers to rackshack

21:10:47 (24.46 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221/8520221]


fdcservers to e-servers

07:15:47 (21.00 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221/8520221]



mm... like fdcserver to the world is even below 256Kbps....
maybe it's only this server... maybe a lot... who knows...
bummer... If I get a server.... what's the minimun speed I'll get ?
UPload/DOWNload ... any guaranty on this ?

And please... fix hosticle server ... I can get faster speed serving from my own PC :)

Regards.

Originally posted by hosticle
My speeds are overpage :D

the problem is hosticle that I don`t know who you are hosticle , so please kindly contact our support with your IP adress and the problem you`re experincing and I am positive you`ll be helped promtly :-)

Originally posted by cascompany


mm... like fdcserver to the world is even below 256Kbps....
maybe it's only this server... maybe a lot... who knows...
bummer... If I get a server.... what's the minimun speed I'll get ?
UPload/DOWNload ... any guaranty on this ?

And please... fix hosticle server ... I can get faster speed serving from my own PC :)

Regards.


our clients get 1-3Mbit on averrage ...some people peaked up to 30Mbit
monthly transffer is 600GB and more on our standard machines

I know my users get quick speeds; I have sustained a rate of 16megabit for awhile (untill my server went offline :()

MRTG is a helpful tool and when used with php net-analyzer it is excellent

fdc is on basic service so on 10 mbit camed port with few other servers

i would say pretty good

Unfortunately, I do get an average 8% packet loss when I test, sometimes going up to 40%... even after contacting support and having some changes made :(

ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z

I got from from a RackFast box

23:36:09 (3.35 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

-Brendan

%fetch ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
Receiving uumap.tar.Z (8520221 bytes): 100%
8520221 bytes transferred in 2.6 seconds (3.10 MBps)

(I'm 13 hops away, through alternet among others, to the source. From NAC)

I would be interested in seeing what transfer rates you get from this box:

ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z

servers / desktops whatever. The machine is at NAC.

I'll leave it up for the day.

Thanks

From: ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z

15:09:52 (4.75 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

From: ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z

15:06:21 (98.57 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

The speed kept going up and down...

Very strange. I think the port I'm on may have a cap on it and it should not. I get 3.10MBPS from uunet inbound to that machine.

Thanks Willy... will look at this further.

PS - was that from a server or a desktop? Never mind, I see you've done it from a server...

from ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z 45.76K/s

from uunet: (1.17 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221]

question, anyone know how to set wget to show the speed as well as the %?

IE:

8150K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 98% @ 495.05 KB/s
8200K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 543.48 KB/s
8250K .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 99% @ 561.80 KB/s

Someone said you need to update wget to a newer version to get the incremental KB/s

UUNet to GlobalComppass (via Avity) I get:

17:30:11 (1.08 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

mwatkins :

I just downloaded your file at 90Kb/seg average.

Oh, and 175Kb/seg. from UUNET :)

Server is a P4/512Mb RH 7.3 on a T1 line at bayarea.net
GNU Wget 1.8.1 :D

Just my $0.02 :)

I know this is kind of olf but:

19:39:32 (758.90 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

this is cogent/yipes it should be faster but the box is heavily used.

Originally posted by mwatkins
I would be interested in seeing what transfer rates you get from this box:

ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z

servers / desktops whatever. The machine is at NAC.

I'll leave it up for the day.

Thanks

About 26KB/s on a T1 and desktop machine...

Originally posted by WoodShedd
from ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z 45.76K/s

from uunet: (1.17 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z.1' saved [8520221]


wget url -b and he will do it in background and save % at file wget-log

I am on FDC server as well,

They got excellent downstream (going into FDCservers) and ping time.

But upstream is VERY VERY slow!

KC.

seaborgium# wget ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
--19:48:11-- ftp://ftp.uu.net/uumap.tar.Z
=> `uumap.tar.Z'
Resolving ftp.uu.net... done.
Connecting to ftp.uu.net[192.48.96.9]:21... connected.
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> SYST ... done. ==> PWD ... done.
==> TYPE I ... done. ==> CWD not needed.
==> PORT ... done. ==> RETR uumap.tar.Z ... done.
Length: 8,520,221 (unauthoritative)

100%[====================================>] 8,520,221 8.27M/s ETA 00:00

19:48:12 (8.27 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]

seaborgium#


that download to one of my servers inside of verio.

Originally posted by mwatkins
I would be interested in seeing what transfer rates you get from this box:

ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z

servers / desktops whatever. The machine is at NAC.

I'll leave it up for the day.

Thanks

from webreseller
-----
02:22:17 (5.12 MB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]
----

from fdc
----
02:23:14 (58.28 KB/s) - `uumap.tar.Z' saved [8520221]
----

fdc used to be so good i hate when companies oversell the #%@! outta thier bandwidth to keep making more money good thing nothing critical is done on the server there

Originally posted by zdwebhosting
fdc used to be so good i hate when companies oversell the #%@! outta thier bandwidth to keep making more money good thing nothing critical is done on the server there
well that's why they'r implementing two new 100mbit lines. to keep up with their growth.

well that's why they'r implementing two new 100mbit lines. to keep up with their growth.

Eh, evan adding two more 100mbit lines helps a little bit but NOTHING compares to them adding a gige or two now there is a HUGE difference in speed 1 gige is MUCH faster than 10x100mbit lines :eek:

Originally posted by ZakT4PH


Eh, evan adding two more 100mbit lines helps a little bit but NOTHING compares to them adding a gige or two now there is a HUGE difference in speed 1 gige is MUCH faster than 10x100mbit lines :eek:
well for their company size it should be enough. afaik they aren't that big, that they'd need a gig-e. they got one 100mbit pipe till now from cogent, and they'r implementing two new ... so that'll triple their bandwidth... far enough for some time, if you ask me.

if they are doing 200-300mbits and they are thinking about just adding more 100mbit lines they are crazy. I'm not trying to be mean but their is a speed difference from once you hit fiber. The only reason I can see them only going 100mbit at a time is if they are A. scared of goign gige if clients start pushing more traffic than they can afford or B. some oddly strange reason they just love cat5 :eek:

Originally posted by ZakT4PH
if they are doing 200-300mbits and they are thinking about just adding more 100mbit lines they are crazy. I'm not trying to be mean but their is a speed difference from once you hit fiber. The only reason I can see them only going 100mbit at a time is if they are A. scared of goign gige if clients start pushing more traffic than they can afford or B. some oddly strange reason they just love cat5 :eek:
arrr. please READ!
i said they got _one_ 100mbit at the moment, and they'll add another _two_ for now. so that'll triple their avaible bandwidth. got it? good! ;-)

Originally posted by ZakT4PH
some oddly strange reason they just love cat5 :eek:
lol, i doubt it :D

Originally posted by ZakT4PH
if they are doing 200-300mbits and they are thinking about just adding more 100mbit lines they are crazy. I'm not trying to be mean but their is a speed difference from once you hit fiber. The only reason I can see them only going 100mbit at a time is if they are A. scared of goign gige if clients start pushing more traffic than they can afford or B. some oddly strange reason they just love cat5 :eek:

If you buy 100Mbps from someone like Cogent or Yipes, they bring it to the facility on fiber. So the latency introduced by a Cat5 patch cable is negligible.

100Mbps isn't faster than 1000Mbps. It's just more capacity.

Kevin

Originally posted by BiGWill

arrr. please READ!
i said they got _one_ 100mbit at the moment, and they'll add another _two_ for now. so that'll triple their avaible bandwidth. got it? good! ;-)


lol, i doubt it :D


FDCservers has 3x100Mbit at the moment and will be adding 2x100 within 10 days

Originally posted by bummer6666



FDCservers has 3x100Mbit at the moment and will be adding 2x100 within 10 days
ah ok ...
thanks for correcting me ;)
i'm sorry for getting that wrong.
sorry to ZakT4PH too ... you were right, and i was wrong. damnit! :D

greets,

from ftp://64.21.147.32/uumap.tar.Z :

I get @500 kbytes.

But with another thread I get 500 kbytes each, totaling 1 mbyte.

I m on the fdc network with a Windows box.

Not bad but I've seen my server blast way more than that, uploading and downloading.