Mike

UzZx32QU

Founder of the G
Forum Donor
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 30, 1997
Posts
5,014
I'm considering several options with hosts for the grumble.

I have a 1.5Mbs download and 256Mbs upload business cable line already in the store. The ports for a web server are open.

Is this enough bandwith to host one site like the G. It's monthly bandwidth is 10g.

We're running into space problem and I must start deleteing post or move server shortly. The current host wants to impose a 100K message limit and 250meg space. And I'm already there.

framer
 
Does the current ISP provide statistics for how much bandwidth we've been using? If its over 6gb/month, I wouldn't chance it with the Cox Cable line. I'm sure the Grumble will continue to gain popularity, so it'll need some growing room. The amount of hot air Ron and I expound monthly could easily eat up whatever is left


I have a 1.5Mbs download and 256Mbs upload business cable line already in the store. The ports for a web server are open.

Is that the higher of the 3 service tiers? We're on the lowest plan ($69/month) and they tend to stretch the truth a bit with the bandwidth. Residential (128) is the middle one (similar to residential) and 256 is the highest. Actual speed may be considerably lower, which can be tested before making any decisions.

Your existing unix server in the shop would make an IDEAL web server, and should be able to handle whatever we (grumblers) can throw at it.
 
just to be clear it 1.5Mbs downstream in to my store and 256Kbs not Mbs upstream out. The bandwith used at the current hosting provider is 9 - 10 gigs per month. Our normal load is 35 - 50 connection at a time and I've never seen it over 75.

I'm grandfathered in to a old plan that runs another 2 1/2 years. They claim it's no longer offered at any price. I've downloaded all three iso files for RedHat 9 in under 30 minutes 1.8 gigs.

If I use 10,000,000,000bytes in 30 days, thats 333,333,333bytes per day, figure 12 hour day 27,777,777 per hour average, /by 60 to see traffic per minute 462,962 bytes and per sec 7716 x 10 bit per byte =77.16Kbs if all upstream. This is 1/3 of capacity to allow for peak times

Also they count the band width incoming which reduces the upstream load.

If my figures are wrong please advise.

framer
 
If we're already using 9-10 and Cox has a 10gig cap, it doesn't look very promising. I wonder if they actually enforce it.

I run an FTP on one of my Cox lines, and it cripples both directions when I'm sending/uploading to a remote site.

I see some other hosting plans with 400mb/20gb, 600mb/unlimited, 1gb/unlimited, etc., for a lower monthly fee, but you'd have to provide the UBB.x
 
Eeek. Geek alert. Actually, this thread probably should have been titled "What to do when your web site starts to see some real traffic."

And framer, I think there's a little error in your calculations..

10 gigs = 2^30*10 = 10,737,418,240 bytes
Then that / 30 = 357,913,941
/ 12 = 29,826,161
/ 3600 = 8285 plus change

So that's 8,285 bytes a second which equates to only 8.09Kbs, as a kilobyte = 1024 bytes.

That's pretty trivial for your upload pipe. As long as your average per sec load (over a 12 hour period) doesn't got much higher than that you should be well under your cap.

However, I'd be interested to know what your peak load statistics are, as that's going to be completely different. But I think as long as you're not leeching ISOs off the net during peak times I bet you'll be OK.

Hat's off to you framer for running a very successful site. :D

[ 02-11-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: WizSteve ]
 
I just did a test that Mike wanted me to run.

I started an upload to another site I have on the web a mix mash of files of different sizes and types about 100meg in size. I then started a couple of 600 meg downloads. The download speed can be dependent on other factors so I started 2 and got about 350Mbs downloading. I check the upload and what I timed at a 1meg every 29 sec before the download 33000-bytes-sec went down to 1meg every 37 sec or about 27000-bytes-sec.

I've check my logs peak average is 20000 - 21000 at the worst of times about 2 hours per day.

Just the facts.


framer

[ 02-11-2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: framer tg: ]
 
That's not bad - and probably doable. Your cox internet is much faster than mine, which has a 128 cap.

I just read through the Cox Business Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) from their web page and it looks like they'll let you point a domain to it and run a web server, as a business customer.

It was great speaking with you today again on the phone

Mike

[ 02-11-2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Mike-L@GTP ]
 
Mike and Framer,

Should it become necessary to purge old threads from TG, is there a means to save them off-line - say, to a DVD - in a way that could be available to, and searchable by, the moderators?

It's a simple matter to save individual web pages in a number of formats, but can you save the whole thing?

When I first joined TG, and people talked about searching the archives, I thought it was actually a separate group of old, searchable posts.

I am posting this here, rather than contacting you privately, in case any other geeks* have any thoughts on this.

*I use this term with respect and admiration.
 
I'm sure Framer will have a better answer, but I believe the message boards are stored in database files. It's possible to download the files and store them on a DVD or CD, before doing a system purge, but they won't be searchable after that point.

It would be possible to re-load them in the future (as of the purge day), but that's probably not practical.

If the info was really important, maybe some kind of FAQ could be made from the old threads, prior to a purge.
 
Another option I'm considering is get a cheap space and archive anything over 1 year on a second site. which could be read but not replied to. The problem with a copy to dvd is the UBB won't run as a stand alone and there are licensing issues if it could be done.

Ron and Sue, if you are reading this how valuable are old warped threads say over a year old. Please discuss this with warped users to get their feelings.
 
I would say, in all seriousness, that there are some Warped classics that are so important to the Grumble culture and history that, one way or another, they MUST be saved.

There will always be another thread about dust covers, but it's unlikely that Dermot the Axe Murderer will turn up again if it's dumped.

If things seriously slow down over the next 60 days, as they historically do, I'll track down my favorites and list links.
 
I'd be surprised if you couldn't find something out there that'll let you search a UBB database off a DVD or CD. I just quickly googled to find the database format used by UBB, and while I didn't find it, I saw several mentions of forum interfaces that read and write a UBB database.

Does anyone know off the top of their head what type of database it uses?

And I'd be surprised if many picture framers weren't interested in purchasing a copy of something like "Best of The Grumble" on CD that they could install and search on their local machine, though I don't remember what your terms of service are and if you have permission to do that. Probably.
 
Ahh.. looks like it's just a MySQL backend on UBB. Nice open-source database system, and should have plenty of ways to talk to it.
 
MySQL is used in their Threads product. UBB.classic uses flat files, a collection of cgi scripts. Yes, I'm sure a program could be written in short order to read and search the scripts. I think I can also export to DOS comma delimited database.

framer

Thank you, Ron I needed to know that.

[ 02-13-2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: framer tg: ]
 
framer tg said:
"Another option I'm considering is get a cheap space and archive anything over 1 year on a second site. which could be read but not replied to.

A BIG THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE FOR US.

Having read the grumble for quite a few years, I have noticed that certain topics seem to resurface. As new grumblers start topics,another newbie typically answers and then a seasoned grumbler suggests a search and or a link to a past thread. I think we are in the forth cycle. It seems that each "rethread" offers about the same information PLUS a little bit better or different perspective. In a sense the older threads have good information, but are not as fresh as what is being said today.

So, I am wondering if "the grumble" could be treated like a magazine. Anything over a year or a year and a half could be archived for postarity, and all the old ideas could be discussed in a current contex.

Ron said.
"I would say, in all seriousness, that there are some Warped classics that are so important to the Grumble culture and history that, one way or another, they MUST be saved."

I agree. Plus - anything written by Orton. (I miss his participation.)

Could the archived grumble could be used as a fundraiser for more storage?

Mitch
 
What I'm doing right know is setting up our own deticated server. The only thing being served will be the G. Before I put the G on it I will test the speed of the access because with out a fair speed everyone would go elsewhere. If the server fail my test I have a plan B, C, & D. Timeline for this is at least a month, to test out my cable line. I'm also looking at % of downtime on the line or slowdowns all need to be found out.

framer
 
Once you're up, email me the IP if you'd like and i'll help test it out.

I signed a new contract with Cox yesterday. Our very slow feed with them is only 128. (@$69/mo)

Mike
 
I think Mitch has some excellent ideas there. I would be willing to pay for a CD or DVD of Grumble Archives as a fundraiser for maintaining the current and future system. I also think the magazine analogy is valid. As any DECOR reader can tell you, there are about 10 basic topics that keep getting rewritten, and that is the magazine. The state of the art improves and styles change, but the topics are pretty much the same. No one is going to get out an issue of DECOR from 1979 to look up advice on mounting (I hope).
This disc archive would address this issue.
I agree about saving anything written by Orton, not to mention Rebecca and Hugh. And, yes, there are plenty of Warped classics that I would hate to see lost. Ron's comment about "Dermot the Axe Murderer" gave me a good laugh.
As always, thanks Framer for all you do. Keep us posted.
:cool: Rick
 
Back
Top