YES, that is possible! and not only with SSD servers, but also with more traditional servers.
You need something like Pulsed Media's Super100 seedbox, with few users per disk and traffic limits ensuring you get a fair piece of the pie that is bandwidth.
You will then be able to use much more larger share of the pie at the time you need it, rather than potentially be limited by resource hungry other users on the server, and thus getting blazing fast seedbox speeds.
Look for the overall offer, if it has traffic limits you can potentially have much higher burst performance than otherwise expected.
8/05/2014
datacenter wiring: Network patch panels, switches, wiring mess
The music is just as terrifying as the cabling!
Now, try to work on that.
Datacenter cabling really should look something more like this:
Untangling the hot mess that is in the first vid is going to take some major work!
Here is an example, with just few racks involved, but whole ton of switch ports connected to them:
7/30/2014
7/14/2014
Minimizing last gen Dell server power consumption
I got my hands on a used Dell cloud chassis with 4x nodes with 2xQC Intel Xeon CPUs each and 24G ram on each, for total of 96G.
Initially, when first time booting up it consumed 1050-1200W out of the wall. That's insane!
Fans were screaming like hurricane etc.
After a little bit of fiddling, slotting the nodes out and back in again, it stabilized to 690W under 100% CPU load finally. This is still way too much.
No power saving setting in BIOS seemed to help at all. Linux speedstepping was a bit erratic as well.
Took out the 2nd cpu was in my use those are not needed and slotted out half of the ram as well which was dedicated to the 2nd cpu and finally down to 320W under load, measured from the wall!
Now that is sweet: 320W for 4xXeon servers with 12G ECC Ram on each :)
Initially, when first time booting up it consumed 1050-1200W out of the wall. That's insane!
Fans were screaming like hurricane etc.
After a little bit of fiddling, slotting the nodes out and back in again, it stabilized to 690W under 100% CPU load finally. This is still way too much.
No power saving setting in BIOS seemed to help at all. Linux speedstepping was a bit erratic as well.
Took out the 2nd cpu was in my use those are not needed and slotted out half of the ram as well which was dedicated to the 2nd cpu and finally down to 320W under load, measured from the wall!
Now that is sweet: 320W for 4xXeon servers with 12G ECC Ram on each :)
7/10/2014
making network cables
Got some gear in and needed custom length network cables, since i hadnt made any cables for over a decade i had to get new reel, plugs, pliers etc.
On to making cables, i recalled it being super simple, but somehow after hours i had 0 working cables - WTF?! always some issues.
I recall it being so easy that i made my first cables even without checking up how to make them, and on first attempt for a long run. Wierd, when did it become this hard?
For a while, i used way too long cables, but then i checked out youtube that i better make good cables and stumbled upon this funny tek syndicate tutorial video:
On to making cables, i recalled it being super simple, but somehow after hours i had 0 working cables - WTF?! always some issues.
I recall it being so easy that i made my first cables even without checking up how to make them, and on first attempt for a long run. Wierd, when did it become this hard?
For a while, i used way too long cables, but then i checked out youtube that i better make good cables and stumbled upon this funny tek syndicate tutorial video:
7/03/2014
Cogent, Verizon, Comcast. Get your act together - NOW!
Cogent, Verizon and Comcast - Get your damn act together now for the sake of users!
Cogent is a brilliant disruptive force in the networking industry - they aim to have the best pricing around, and aim constantly to make better offers for their customers, hence their network has grown really fast.
Verizon and Comcast are the big bad telcos in the states who want to control everything. They all have a peering agreement between each other.
Thing is, Cogent has a lot of customers who use tons of bandwidth as their Mbps rates are generally the lowest. In today's market as low as around 0,45€/Mbps! (4500€ for 10Gig link)
Hence, Cogent is the choice for parties who move a lot of data, such as Netflix.
Verizon and Comcast are telcos, they have their network extending for the last mile and they too have vast backbone networks to connect all the metropolitan areas together, all the counties and states.
Cogent doesn't offer connections to the end user, they focus on datacenters, backbone networking, connecting different datacenters, networks and telcos together.
For more than a year Verizon and Comcast has been refusing to upgrade the peering with Cogent because they are such a disruptive force and moves so much traffic, Cogent gets the big data customers which Verizon and Comcast are unable to reach.
Verizon and Comcast have the eyeballs, Cogent have the providers, until lately Cogent has been starting to get the eyeballs as well from other countries smaller telcos getting their transit agreement.
We cannot know what precisely is going behind the curtains, but my bet is that Verizon and Comcast would like to charge Cogent for access to their eyeballs, and hence refusing to upgrade the peering.
On grassroots levels it's also been suspected that Verizon and Comcast throttle traffic from various Cogent sources, and some of it has been on the news, comcast refusing to upgrade to fix congestion to force netflix into interconnection deal.
At the end of the day, it's all users who need traffic between verizon and cogent, or comcast and cogent who suffers. My guess is that the traffic is mostly one sided, most traffic flows from cogent network to verizon and comcast, since that is the nature.
Cogent has a vastly "upstream" biased network, while Comcast and Verizon offering the last mile has vastly "downstream" biased network - or so i would assume.
However, Cogent is scoring more and more local ISPs in other countries than the states - so we might see that change eventually.
Cogent is a brilliant disruptive force in the networking industry - they aim to have the best pricing around, and aim constantly to make better offers for their customers, hence their network has grown really fast.
Verizon and Comcast are the big bad telcos in the states who want to control everything. They all have a peering agreement between each other.
Thing is, Cogent has a lot of customers who use tons of bandwidth as their Mbps rates are generally the lowest. In today's market as low as around 0,45€/Mbps! (4500€ for 10Gig link)
Hence, Cogent is the choice for parties who move a lot of data, such as Netflix.
Verizon and Comcast are telcos, they have their network extending for the last mile and they too have vast backbone networks to connect all the metropolitan areas together, all the counties and states.
Cogent doesn't offer connections to the end user, they focus on datacenters, backbone networking, connecting different datacenters, networks and telcos together.
For more than a year Verizon and Comcast has been refusing to upgrade the peering with Cogent because they are such a disruptive force and moves so much traffic, Cogent gets the big data customers which Verizon and Comcast are unable to reach.
Verizon and Comcast have the eyeballs, Cogent have the providers, until lately Cogent has been starting to get the eyeballs as well from other countries smaller telcos getting their transit agreement.
We cannot know what precisely is going behind the curtains, but my bet is that Verizon and Comcast would like to charge Cogent for access to their eyeballs, and hence refusing to upgrade the peering.
On grassroots levels it's also been suspected that Verizon and Comcast throttle traffic from various Cogent sources, and some of it has been on the news, comcast refusing to upgrade to fix congestion to force netflix into interconnection deal.
At the end of the day, it's all users who need traffic between verizon and cogent, or comcast and cogent who suffers. My guess is that the traffic is mostly one sided, most traffic flows from cogent network to verizon and comcast, since that is the nature.
Cogent has a vastly "upstream" biased network, while Comcast and Verizon offering the last mile has vastly "downstream" biased network - or so i would assume.
However, Cogent is scoring more and more local ISPs in other countries than the states - so we might see that change eventually.
6/26/2014
Why shared over dedi?
In many cases shared seedbox is much better choice than a dediseedbox.
Why shared seedbox is often better choice?
- Ease of use
- Instant availability
- Cost
- Better burst capabilities
- Sometimes you get practically a dedi for shared money
Easy to use
Most of the times a dedi doesn't come setup, it's just a plain install, and you need to know how to install everything etc.
You could go with something like PMSS, but it still requires you to set it up and knowing how to administer the server, updates, creating users etc.
Shared service has already all of this covered.
Instant availability
Shared and semidedi seedboxes are usually instantly available, no waiting period etc. just login and start using it. Even if a dedicated server is provided to you within seconds like many providers do, you still need to install everything and that could easily take up an hour or two.
Cost
Obviously a shared service is going to be much cheaper almost all of the time. Certainly, there is ultra cheap dedis on the market as well, but they often have a setup fee associated with them or other hardships, and often are so weak as to be barely usable.
Better peak performance
Say you get a 10Gbps seedbox from someone like Feralhosting, you are going to see 5Gbps+ peaks at least down. To get a dedicated like that would cost you hundreds a month, but with someone like Feralhosting it's going to be tens of euros. Sure, they have huge markup, and huge amount of users per server to be able to offer that service for tens of euros, but you will also benefit from their optimizations.
There is also plans where you are going to see ultra stable performance despite being shared, for example a 1Gbps seedbox with just 100Mbps upstream capability and traffic limited seedbox, so you get a nice middle ground between dedicated and shared :)
Sometimes you get tons more than you bargained for
With shared services you have the potential to get tons more than what you bargained for, sometimes the other users on the server barely use any resources what so ever, or it's mostly empty server waiting for new signups. Think about it, dediseedbox for shared seedbox money! :O
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)