Official eMule-Board: How Much Sever Bandwith Is Needed? - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

How Much Sever Bandwith Is Needed? Razorback 2

#1 User is offline   dudeman456 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 19-January 03

Posted 06 December 2004 - 08:58 AM

How much bandwith does a server like Razorback 2 use?
0

#2 User is offline   Andu 

  • Morph Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,009
  • Joined: 04-December 02

Posted 06 December 2004 - 01:08 PM

You can probably find out on gruk.org BUT the site is in french.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.


Dark Lord of the Forum


Morph your Mule

Need a little help with your MorphXT? Click here

0

#3 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 06 December 2004 - 01:19 PM

Razorback2 uses about 30 Mbits/sec

The number of lowid clients is the most important factor.
0

#4 User is offline   dudeman456 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 19-January 03

Posted 06 December 2004 - 04:30 PM

Why would the low id clients use up more bandwith?
0

#5 User is offline   birk 

  • Room To Let
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,524
  • Joined: 23-May 03

Posted 06 December 2004 - 04:32 PM

dudeman456, on Dec 6 2004, 05:30 PM, said:

Why would the low id clients use up more bandwith?
View Post

Because the server has to route many of the requests for the low id clients, for them to be connected to the ed2k network. :)
0

#6 User is offline   buzz 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 860
  • Joined: 25-December 02

Posted 06 December 2004 - 04:45 PM

Are these 30Mbit/s equally divided between up- and downstream or even 30Mbit/s in each direction?
0

#7 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 06 December 2004 - 08:02 PM

Quote

Are these 30Mbit/s equally divided between up- and downstream or even 30Mbit/s in each direction?


Not exactly equally divided...

30Mbits/s from razorback2 to the world

25Mbits/s to razorback2 from the world
0

#8 User is offline   dudeman456 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 19-January 03

Posted 07 December 2004 - 06:10 AM

When the Razorback people restart their server they will upgrade their server version to 17.1, which now supports more that 900,000 users(specially added for Razorback 2), would it be safe to say that they could easyly become one (if not) the busiest server on the net?, makes you wonder how is alll of this paid for.

If they are a server just on donations.
0

#9 User is offline   buzz 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 860
  • Joined: 25-December 02

Posted 07 December 2004 - 07:48 AM

@dudeman

Razorback already is the biggest server. And has been for a long time.

Furthermore you should do a little bit of research who you are talking to.
(Lug is the coder of the edonkey server and administrates the razorback server....)
0

#10 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 07 December 2004 - 07:49 AM

Quote

they will upgrade their server version to 17.1


razorback has a 16.50 version, very close of 17.1. No need to restart it, just wait for a scheduled restart.

In fact I called 16.50 version 17.1 when officialy released.

And no, eserver is not specially made for razorback. This is exactly the opposite : Razorback was made for the eserver :) If ram upgrade from 12GB to 16GB is done, then razorback should raise its clients count.
0

#11 User is offline   dudeman456 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 19-January 03

Posted 07 December 2004 - 08:07 AM

oh, I should have been more clear, I spoke with Bile666, and he said that the server will be taken to the new version, when they restart the server.

And when I said specially made, I meant to say the over 900K user limit, as Razorback 2 is the only public server using that potential amount, sorry for not being to clear on that.
0

#12 User is offline   GreatInca 

  • Jesus Freak
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 20-September 04

Posted 28 December 2004 - 08:13 PM

LowID uses double the bandwidth of a normal user or more like 3x or 4x or even 5x?

I have a client that shares 4800 files. It doesn't download much (anymore). Its using my job's office bandwidth (no hosted servers) that is a full duplex T1. So I can upload all I want but downloading disturbs the office's connectivity, even if I highly limit the bandwidth (only having 5-10 downloads open at a time deosn't disturb the office), so I stopped downloading.

Which hogs more server bandwidth for LowID - Uplaoding, Downloading or about equal?
0

#13 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 28 December 2004 - 08:33 PM

The additional trafic that a lowid produces is caused by the callbacks.

A HighID clients which wants to contact a LOWID sends a 'LOWID callback" to the server.

The server then relays the request via the TCP connection he has with the LOWID client.

One callback typically uses 4 network segments (including the ACK messages)

Let's take an example :

[c:es v:60/0.43b/0/0 r:45487.616 x:1202261.21367.1 p:45/8/0 S:12264/20255/1897 t:383358/308/129 s:0/0 l:0/85123/0/11 f:znE] http://emule-project.net

This lowid clients shares 45 files. Connected for 383358 seconds.
He was given as a source 12264 times.
He got 308 sources from its 129 source requests.
The server got 85123 lowidcallbacks for this client.
The server sent 21367 frames (1202261 bytes) to this client. (The server is able to coalesce several callbacks into one frame to save tcp overhead)

If we now examine a highID client :
[c:br v:60/0.44d/0/60 r:23495.744 x:56857.1824.0 p:46/6/0 S:44295/2467/803 t:383658/720/236 s:0/0 l:234/0/0/0 f:znUEk] AFF_ghY

He was given as a source 44295 times (more than a LOWID is)
Only 1824 frames (56857 bytes) were sent for the same connection time (383658 seconds)


For one LOWID client, the overhead caused by these callbacks is negligible.
In fact a LOWID client receive less trafic from other clients.

But server side this (overhead * XXXXX) clients is not negligible at all. It's huge.

Conclusion:

I doubt being a LOWID client can explain your "office's connectivity problem"
0

#14 User is offline   dudeman456 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 19-January 03

Posted 28 December 2004 - 09:41 PM

Wow, we should really thank servers like Razorback 2 for the service they provide, I knew it was a lot of data, but never reliazed it was so much.
0

#15 User is offline   GreatInca 

  • Jesus Freak
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 20-September 04

Posted 28 December 2004 - 09:52 PM

lugdunummaster, on Dec 28 2004, 01:33 PM, said:

The additional trafic that a lowid produces is caused by the callbacks.

A HighID clients which wants to contact a LOWID sends a 'LOWID callback" to the server.

The server then relays the request via the TCP connection he has with the LOWID client.

One callback typically uses 4 network segments (including the ACK messages)

Let's take an example :

  [c:es v:60/0.43b/0/0 r:45487.616 x:1202261.21367.1 p:45/8/0 S:12264/20255/1897 t:383358/308/129 s:0/0 l:0/85123/0/11 f:znE] http://emule-project.net

This lowid clients shares 45 files. Connected for 383358 seconds.
He was given as a source 12264 times.
He got 308 sources from its 129 source requests.
The server got 85123 lowidcallbacks for this client.
The server sent 21367 frames (1202261 bytes) to this client. (The server is able to coalesce several callbacks into one frame to save tcp overhead)

If we now examine a highID client :
[c:br v:60/0.44d/0/60 r:23495.744 x:56857.1824.0 p:46/6/0 S:44295/2467/803 t:383658/720/236 s:0/0 l:234/0/0/0 f:znUEk] AFF_ghY

He was given as a source 44295 times (more than a LOWID is)
Only 1824 frames (56857 bytes) were sent for the same connection time (383658 seconds)


For one LOWID client, the overhead caused by these callbacks is negligible.
In fact a LOWID client receive less trafic from other clients.

But server side this (overhead * XXXXX) clients is not negligible at all. It's huge.

Conclusion:

I doubt being a LOWID client can explain your "office's connectivity problem"
View Post



So a LowID's overhead is 10X a HighIDs particularly on heavy uploaders. That sux.


I know LowID really sux for sharing but when the bandwidth is not yours (but not necessarily used - in regards to a full duplex T1) you got to take what you can get. I acutally think LowID helps connectivity (other than not share) becuase the router can only get clogged by outoging connections.
0

#16 User is offline   Unknown1 

  • Wanna be Dev
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 1,288
  • Joined: 11-September 02

Posted 29 December 2004 - 09:00 PM

You know.. Something that would be interesting to know is the percent bandwidth used per client type.

Like two lists.

What percent of each client type is connected to the server..

Then

What percent of bandwidth is used by each client type.

#17 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 29 December 2004 - 11:12 PM

Quote

You know.. Something that would be interesting to know is the percent bandwidth used per client type.

Like two lists.

What percent of each client type is connected to the server..

Then

What percent of bandwidth is used by each client type.


OK i will add such stats in next version, I will let you know the results :+1:
0

#18 User is offline   Devil Doll 

  • feature request writer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,570
  • Joined: 19-February 04

Posted 30 December 2004 - 02:48 AM

GreatInca, on Dec 28 2004, 09:52 PM, said:

So a LowID's overhead is 10X a HighIDs particularly on heavy uploaders.  That sux.
And if I read the numbers correctly then Razorback is telling me that 10% of its users are LowID, causing more than half of its traffic - right?
Would Razorback be able to handle more users if it reduced its LowID rate?
0

#19 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 30 December 2004 - 08:02 AM

Quote

Would Razorback be able to handle more users if it reduced its LowID rate?


Yes and no.

The limiting factor on razorback is the RAM.

With 12 GB of ram, no more than 900.000 clients
0

#20 User is offline   asturcon3 

  • Miembro con bola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,472
  • Joined: 26-July 04

Posted 30 December 2004 - 05:04 PM

13 kb per each connected client? :shock: Sure you store the IP, the share list and some stats of each client, but 13kb still seems too much to me... :confused:
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
0

  • Member Options

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users