GODDAMN SERVER

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 09:19pm

MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 09:27pm

I am currently hosting the board on my home LAN. Not sure how long this situation will last, but MJ's server reliability problem has been rather severe the last couple of days, and without root access, I can't restore it myself, so I'm basically dependent upon his schedule; if he's out drinking or something, I can't get ahold of him to ask for help.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-03 09:29pm

Is there anything we can do, perhaps limit our time visiting the place on this server or perhaps sending people round to "convince" MJ of these problems?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 09:34pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Is there anything we can do, perhaps limit our time visiting the place on this server or perhaps sending people round to "convince" MJ of these problems?

Well, for all I know my home server is capable of handling the load all by itself (we'll see when more people log on, eh?)

In the meantime, I'll just see if MJ can figure out what happened. I can't very well move the board back there until he's got the problem sorted out, not unless he gives me root access so I can restart dead Apache processes myself, and I doubt he's willing to do that.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-05-03 09:38pm

I find the emptiness of the forums to be quite liberating.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 09:57pm

I suppose people will have to report back to me about just how good or bad the performance is with this server. I can't tell how fast or slow it is because I'm local to it, ie- I don't have to access it through my Net connection.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-03 09:59pm

working fine here.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-03 10:00pm

I was wondering what was up.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-03 10:01pm

At least the time is correct, for a change.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-05-03 10:03pm

Actually, it seems to be running better than on MJ's server.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-03 10:11pm

I concur, it's actually got the right time and running as though it is actually on a decent server for once.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-05-03 10:22pm

It feels pretty nice right now

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-05-03 10:32pm

This is faster than normal. It might be only because most people think it's dead and aren't trying to access, though.

Zathras · Post by **Zathras** » 2003-05-03 10:35pm

It's working better than average for me, anyway....

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-05-03 10:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.

Looks like i missed the fun, though it appears quite stable just now on your Home system. And the time is indeed correct rather than 20+ minutes slow. That said, how does the current number of people on right now (46), compare to the normal load? And what'll happen if I post at my normal rate?

I think, until we know how much load your server can take, that we should voluntarily cut out the spam and TGODing, just until you can get an idea for strain on your system.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-03 10:44pm

Browses nice and fast here in Indiana.
Search function gave a quick response as well.

Though we'll have to see how it does with 500 users at once.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 10:45pm

Rob Wilson wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:MJ's server crapped out again, and I couldn't contact him. Argh.
Looks like i missed the fun, though it appears quite stable just now on your Home system. And the time is indeed correct rather than 20+ minutes slow. That said, how does the current number of people on right now (46), compare to the normal load? And what'll happen if I post at my normal rate? I think, until we know how much load your server can take, that we should voluntarily cut out the spam and TGODing, just until you can get an idea for strain on your system.

I just checked, and there's 55 people on. That's actually a fairly typical load. I'm a little surprised; I expected more of a severe load on my system (the dedicated server is a P600 with 512MB of RAM).

The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-05-03 10:47pm

Glocksman wrote:Browses nice and fast here in Indiana.
Search function gave a quick response as well.

Though we'll have to see how it does with 500 users at once.

Well the record to date is 82 at once, and we currently have 61, and it's stil holding up fine. We'll have to see what happens under protracted load though.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-05-03 10:49pm

The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem

You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-03 10:49pm

Its starting to slow down for me.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2003-05-03 10:50pm

Yeah, its running much faster on my end.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-05-03 10:54pm

Glocksman wrote:
The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem
You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.

Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2003-05-03 11:00pm

Alyeska wrote:
Glocksman wrote:
The only real impact on my system seems to be the wildly flashing lights on my DSL modem
You don't have a bandwidth cap, do you?

At least you aren't doing this over a cable modem.
My download speeds are fantastic, but my upload speed sucks ass at about 30K/sec.
Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop.

Where I am, cable has no cap while DSL has a 10gig limit (5up\5down).

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-05-03 11:13pm

xtreme wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Bandwidth caps are almost purely for Cable Modems. I have yet to hear of any DSL connections with that. I myself have averaged 30GB in a single month on my DSL modem and I never got a call from my ISP threatening to break my legs if I didn't stop.
Where I am, cable has no cap while DSL has a 10gig limit (5up\5down).

Ah another UK resident.

I have on occasion averaged 40-50 GBs a day for a few weeks while I've been out of town and left Kazaalite running (you should have seen the list of uploads) and nary a word from my ISP. Yep NTL may have newserver problems but they haven't let me down on the upload download front. BT would have had a small fit at that and doubtless demanded blood!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-03 11:16pm

The tech support people said I wouldn't be cut off for excess bandwidth, but I talked to two separate people, and honestly, I wouldn't trust those nitwits to tie their own shoelaces. So I guess we'll find out if I have a cap

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

GODDAMN SERVER

GODDAMN SERVER

Re: GODDAMN SERVER

Re: GODDAMN SERVER