i am not sure if this is the right forum but i will try my luck.

I am considering to build for a customer a project that will need to transfer something like 75 gigs a day.
So I guess it's something like 7-8 mbp/s if I am doing the math well.
I don't mind to use cogent if it's reliable and will ensure using that amount of data every day.
Any ideas/suggestions/offers
Thanks in advance

You want to get a dedicated server! Double P3 with 2Gigs RAM at least if you use dynamic scripts.

This is the 3rd forum on WHT I read this in!!!:eek:

thank you very much for the info.
i will not have too many scripts.. 2-3 small ones.
i will use script to take huge files and split them into small ones and send over.
are you sure i need such a huge box for that? 2 gig or RAM?

Originally posted by microsol
You want to get a dedicated server! Double P3 with 2Gigs RAM at least if you use dynamic scripts.

At least 2GB RAM, DUEL 1GHZ Processors, and SCSI Drives if you are serious about being able to do this. Do NOT use IDE drives for this.

Good luck. :)

Originally posted by sitekeeper
NOT use IDE drives for this.

Why not? Last time I used Sandra2002 benchmark and compared between am Adaptec (expensive!) with a 36GB Disks and my Promise with an ATA133 Disk it beat the SCSI crap by far.

Don't get me wrong, I grew up with SCSI but I think it is of no importance nowadays exept big corporations that need HDD tower systems.

It is dead expensive and the advantage is NOT speed but f.e. that you are able to connect 15 devices one on econtroller for example.

Preoblem is that the IDE High-Tech stuff is not known so well. There are RAID controllers, Hot-plug drive drawers etc etc
Some people here said something about the "interleave".. so what about it? Quit repeating propaganda of the 80ies/early 90ies and run a benchmark. You will be suprised ;)

i agree about the prformance.
the only question is how stable are IDE drives..
i don't want them to crash when i am so far away.
i am going to pay so much money for the bandwith so i am afraid to do a mistake by saving some $$ for the hardware.
in the other hand i would be happy to save money if i can...

IDE has beaten SCSI in Benchmarks for a while, try them side by side in the real world with multiple http connections using streaming and IDE can't keep up. IDE is much better then a few years ago but it's not SCSI..

Benchmarks show MS-IIS to beat Apache all the time, I don't belive that either. It's like the old PC benchmarks that counted MIPS. "Millions of instructions per second" or should I say "meaningless instructions per second";)

I considered this to be a high-end server.
75GB a day in a lot, I think anyone would admit that. I just would prefer high-end SCSI raid sub-system.

I use IDE Raid 0+1 at home, 4 nice 60GB hds.

IDE drives do fine with that much bandwidth it isn't much of a problem. I had a client who was running a p3 650 512 ram and 40 gig ide drive with FreeBSD pushin a little over 120GB a day on his machine no prob. He was running a free host which had an anon ftp and tons of cgi scripts. Just be sure to have your OS fine tuned for that kinda usage. You may want to throw a couple IDE drives in there and use RAID to distrubute the load a bit.

If its mostly static html and light scripts you will be fine with ide, and no need for dual cpu or 2gbram....but 1gbram would be recommended.

Originally posted by zerphyte2
IDE drives do fine with that much bandwidth it isn't much of a problem. I had a client who was running a p3 650 512 ram and 40 gig ide drive with FreeBSD pushin a little over 120GB a day on his machine no prob. He was running a free host which had an anon ftp and tons of cgi scripts. Just be sure to have your OS fine tuned for that kinda usage. You may want to throw a couple IDE drives in there and use RAID to distrubute the load a bit.
thank you very much for this very important answer.

thank you all for your help.
this is a great forum! - i am so happy i found a forum with so many helpfull guys

Originally posted by zerphyte2
I had a client who was running a p3 650 512 ram and 40 gig ide drive with FreeBSD pushin a little over 120GB a day on his machine no prob. He was running a free host which had an anon ftp and tons of cgi scripts.

I call BS on this.

I don't call BS.

Cause, I've seen i486s saturate T1s, and a P133 saturate a 10MB ethernet connection.

Yes, but not if the server uses "tons of cgi scripts" as he stated.

Well it happened i watched it on several diff graphs and the client was getting the sign ups to prove it. While anything is possible i highly doubt that the bandwidth monitoring on the switch, router, and at server level were all incorrect.

Originally posted by Walter
Yes, but not if the server uses "tons of cgi scripts" as he stated.

no no. no tons of scripts.
2-3 scripts.

Wizard you got me wrong, my post was an answer to

Originally posted by JTY
Cause, I've seen i486s saturate T1s, and a P133 saturate a 10MB ethernet connection

who answered:


Originally posted by zerphyte2
had a client who was running a p3 650 512 ram and 40 gig ide drive with FreeBSD pushin a little over 120GB a day on his machine no prob. He was running a free host which had an anon ftp and tons of cgi scripts


Sorry for my misleading post.

I doubt you will need a dual processor server if you are mainly transfering files.

here (http://ihate.allfeminism.com/MRTG.htm) is an MRTG graph from one of my servers ( xp 1700+ 512mb ram FreBSD). As you can see I'm using a lot of bandwidth, and the server was never loaded more than .70.

Originally posted by wizard
i agree about the prformance.
the only question is how stable are IDE drives..
i don't want them to crash when i am so far away.
i am going to pay so much money for the bandwith so i am afraid to do a mistake by saving some $$ for the hardware.
in the other hand i would be happy to save money if i can...

Maybe its just our bad luck but we've had more SCSI drives fail than IDE...of course they were IBM. I will never use IBM drives again wheter its IDE or SCSI. They have been the biggest headcahe for us.

IBM drives are garbage... Hence, IBM no longer makes them.

yea i would say 1gig ram, 1ghz p3 should push that fine with hardly any scripts.

Why not? Last time I used Sandra2002 benchmark and compared between am Adaptec (expensive!) with a 36GB Disks and my Promise with an ATA133 Disk it beat the SCSI crap by far.LOL - good luck.

I have been a SCSI guy for years, but hearing all the talk about IDE drives being just as good now, decided to get a couple - first a Maxtor and an IBM (before their reputation went down the tubes) and then recently a couple Seagate Barracudas. Compared to the Quantum Atlas 10K II / III and Seagate Cheetahs I had been using, they are s l o w (these are in home systems)

I also moved one of my web sites from a shared server which used a SCSI Atlas 10K II drive to a dedicated with a more powerful CPU and equal Ram with a pair of Seagate Barracuda IDE 7200 RPM drives - a perl script which generates 100+ html files went from taking 20-25 seconds to generate the html files on the old server to taking 50-55 seconds on the brand new and totally unloaded server with its IDE drives (load average 0.00 to 0.01). I think I'll be staying with SCSI for a while longer when I can afford it.

This just what you need, why pay a few thousand dollars a month

Check it out....
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65663 :D

Originally posted by sitekeeper
This just what you need, why pay a few thousand dollars a month

Check it out....
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65663 :D


there are many unlimited bandwith sites.
just search in google

I have a K2-450 MHz with 512 MB ram and do 40-50 GB per day at least - server load is NEVER above 1.0 and all I have is a little IDE drive.

Why are you guys putting down the IBM drives? Sure their IDE drives shouldn't be used in any server.

Yet, have you tried their new 80gig or 120gig drives? I don't know of any that come with an 8MB buffer as of yet in these sizes, but I've been amazed with IBM and their 80gig and 120gig drives. I haven't purchased IBM in such a long time knowing and hearing all of the bad rumors about them. But, I do believe in their 80gig and 120gig drives. These are fantastic and work like a beast!

In fact, we've been throwing these drives in computers here at the shop. Customers have been satisfied, haven't had any customers bring a box back yet saying the harddrive died on them. We used to have quite a few customers bring back IBM drives, but not now.

I'd have to say I am very pleased with IBM, I'd just like to see them get the 7200RPM 120Gig drive with the 8MB buffer, I haven't seen any with the 8MB buffer yet.