Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: 75 gigs a day

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30

    75 gigs a day

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    1,219
    You want to get a dedicated server! Double P3 with 2Gigs RAM at least if you use dynamic scripts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Troy, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,299

    Question POSTS

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30
    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.
    Last edited by wizard; 08-07-2002 at 08:52 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Troy, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,299
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Glika Nera - Athens - Greece - Europe
    Posts
    2,295

    Question

    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30
    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...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Troy, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,299

    * SCSI

    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.
    Last edited by sitekeeper; 08-07-2002 at 09:13 AM.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    1,044
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30
    thank you all for your help.
    this is a great forum! - i am so happy i found a forum with so many helpfull guys

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,991
    I don't call BS.

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

  15. #15
    Yes, but not if the server uses "tons of cgi scripts" as he stated.

  16. #16
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30
    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.

  18. #18
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    892
    I doubt you will need a dual processor server if you are mainly transfering files.

    here 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.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,280
    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.
    Greg Landis | Founder Jaguarpc - Keeping websites happy since 1998
    Managed IT Solutions - Business hosting | Virtual Private Servers | Cloud VPS Hosting | Dedicated servers | Backup service
    Follow us @ Facebook.com/Jaguarpc | Twitter: @JaguarPC | (888)-338-5261 | sales @ jaguarpc.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,991
    IBM drives are garbage... Hence, IBM no longer makes them.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,262
    yea i would say 1gig ram, 1ghz p3 should push that fine with hardly any scripts.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    848
    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.
    Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Troy, Missouri USA
    Posts
    1,299

    Lightbulb 75 GB a Day

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

    Check it out....
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...threadid=65663

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    30

    * Re: 75 GB a Day

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

    Check it out....
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...threadid=65663

    there are many unlimited bandwith sites.
    just search in google

  26. #26
    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.
    *noobie on the loose*

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Richland, Washington
    Posts
    128

    IBM Drives????

    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.
    Thanks,

    Cline Communications, Corp.
    [email protected]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •