Why does Settler II keep crashing? - Page 2

geeslaka · August 13, 2003, 12:54

Point out a windows server site that recieves the same or more load without crashing.

DrSpike · August 13, 2003, 13:03

Geek warz!!

10 posts on Asher to win, despite his belief that Linux is the source of all evil in the world.

Asher · August 13, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by geeslaka
Point out a windows server site that recieves the same or more load without crashing.

Microsoft.com

Asher · August 13, 2003, 13:40

More seriously, AnandTech.com is under significantly more load than Apolyton and runs Windows 2000 and IIS 5.0.

Harry Seldon · August 13, 2003, 13:47

I've never heard that. It doesn't make sense that an OS that is based on a TCP/IP driven operating system would have an unstable stack. Do you have documentation that supports that. I will give you kudos for the BSD nod though; that must have hurt.

Asher · August 13, 2003, 14:14

1) I've always loved BSDs, best damned server OS you can get IMO
2) In what world is Linux a "TCP/IP driven Operating System"?
3) No one said it was unstable, just not as robust and fine-tuned under high loads as the Unix, BSD, and NT counterparts.

Ben Kenobi · August 13, 2003, 14:15

Quote:

Well, we are getting about 70 new ones a day. And at least 10 of those aren't DLs even.

10!

AH must be slacking off or his workload increasing.

Yes, it is a shame about your pretty picture. Hopefully avatars will be restored soon.

Asher · August 13, 2003, 14:27

Does anyone know if a TCP/IP based operating system even exists? That'd be pretty funky, system calls and messages by TCP packets.

Panag · August 13, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Your "any server would crash when subjected to the load Settler II recieves" comment is beyond ridiculous...

Linux's TCP/IP stack isn't very robust, the websites that use Linux for hosting use clusters so each individual stack doesn't get worked too hard. A real OS, like a BSD or NT, would handle it far more elegantly.

hi ,

well Asher , your comment that its linux fault is also a bit rediculous , ........

why dont you try to convince the owners to change it , good luck , .......

have a nice day

Panag · August 13, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Does anyone know if a TCP/IP based operating system even exists? That'd be pretty funky, system calls and messages by TCP packets.

hi ,

how many do you want , .......

skynet is just one of them , ......

have a nice day

Harry Seldon · August 14, 2003, 10:54

Quote:

Does anyone know if a TCP/IP based operating system even exists? That'd be pretty funky, system calls and messages by TCP packets.

Based and driven are too different things. Maybe I should have specified networking protocols. Windows was built around NetBEUI, Novell around IPX/SPX, Unix around TCP/IP. Since Linux is a derivative of Unix I extrapolated that Linux, too, was built around TCP/IP as a communication protocol. I'll be more than happy to admit you're right about the linux TCP/IP being less robust the 'real OSs' if you can link me some documentation on it but until then I'll mark it down as more Microsoft propaganda.

atawa · August 14, 2003, 13:32

Couldnt we use a mirror system for everything but the forum and let that run on settlerII?

Harry Seldon · August 14, 2003, 14:13

Then you still run into the cost and administration problems. I think the ideal solution would keep to a single server with the same software. If we could add horsepower to the box or change the configuration of the software to better handle the load I think it would gain acceptance.

Asher · August 14, 2003, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Based and driven are too different things. Maybe I should have specified networking protocols. Windows was built around NetBEUI

Eh? Not modern Windows. NetBEUI doesn't even ship enabled anymore.

Quote:

Since Linux is a derivative of Unix I extrapolated that Linux, too, was built around TCP/IP as a communication protocol.

Linux is not a derivative of Unix, and I still have no idea how you "base" an OS around a protocol...you support them.

Quote:

I'll be more than happy to admit you're right about the linux TCP/IP being less robust the 'real OSs' if you can link me some documentation on it but until then I'll mark it down as more Microsoft propaganda.

Feel free to discount it if you will, but why don't you think about it for a bit:
BSD has been around for how long, now? Linux has been around for how long?
BSD was designed for large server systems, Linux was designed for small, cheap server systems.
Windows supports both BSD's sockets and its own NTSockets, which are based on BSD's sockets.

Linux's simply isn't as mature, or as scalable, as BSD's/Window's/Unix's. It's the newkid and it's still trying to get there.

As for sources on this, well, that's kinda tricky. It stands to logic that Linux's isn't as good as an OS that's much more mature and designed for much larger systems, but I found a few links where people talk about Linux's stack:
http://lists.q-linux.com/pipermail/p...st/008420.html

Quote:

by default freebsd tcp window size is 16k while linux is 64k. i tweak it in
order to have identical values and still my benchmark results that freebsd
tcp/ip stack is faster than linux. furthermore, it depends on what kind of
link do you have to test it, either LAN or WAN. these two links have
different behavior and i found out that freebsd tcp/ip stack is easily
configurable on the fly to those kind of link for maximum performance
compare to linux you have to alter its source code (eg. how do you disable
delay acknowledgement in linux?).. aside from that, many of the linux
community got annoyed with alan cox because he is always playing with the
tcp/ip stack code. in short, tcp/ip stack of linux is his toyland compare to
freebsd tcp/ip stack comes from the research group of berkeley. i remember
the time with linux kernel 2.2.x (somewhere in there) that its tcp/ip stack
really sucks. its too painfully slow until they release a new kernel which
improve the performance.

http://lists.netisland.net/archives/.../msg00396.html

Quote:

The one that pisses me off most frequently is that it is literally
impossible to return an RST packet in any way other than letting
the packet fall through to the kernel's TCP/IP stack. If you don't
return an RST, nmap can see the port's firewalled. If you do return
an RST, nmap just thinks the port's closed. But if you return an
RST by letting it through to the OS, you leave yourself open to OS
fingerprinting (due to quirks in the Linux TCP/IP stack) and, even
scarier, vulnerabilities in the Linux TCP/IP stack (say, like this
one:
https://rhn.redhat.com/network/errat...ls.pxt?eid=947

atawa · August 14, 2003, 14:28

HS: I was talking about letting members serve as a mirror for downloads and other parts of the site.
Let people set their region in their profile and direct them to the closest mirror.

I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that have some extra serverspace.

Panag · August 15, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
HS: I was talking about letting members serve as a mirror for downloads and other parts of the site.
Let people set their region in their profile and direct them to the closest mirror.

I'm sure there are quite a few people out there that have some extra serverspace.

hi ,

its been told but the owners dont want to go that way for now , ......

have a nice day

Imran Siddiqui · August 17, 2003, 22:39

Damn ****ing server! ARGH!

Panag · August 17, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Damn ****ing server! ARGH!

hi ,

relax , the main point is that its back up again , ......

have a nice day

TCO · August 18, 2003, 00:31

Asher was right last time he said that the server needed more RAM or processor or whatever (long time ago). I put my money on him. Dan and Mark, but especially Dan, tend to have very clueless troubleshooting. Anybody remember all the asking posters to run tracert, when its friggin obvious that the problem was not at the user or net level. But only at poly.

H Tower · August 18, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

relax , the main point is that its back up again , ......

have a nice day

Do you understand nothing? Nothing has been fixed so nothing will change; more downtime is in our future.

And are you finally going to send me a PM that contains content and not insults?

Skanky Burns · August 18, 2003, 04:39

H Tower, this smilie seems appropraite:

Frozzy · August 18, 2003, 04:47

The smilie for hair loss?

DrSpike · August 18, 2003, 06:48

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower

And are you finally going to send me a PM that contains content and not insults?

He PM'ed me for objecting (in the DanQ thread) to his usual technique of responding without reading the thread at all. Unsurprisingly the PM contained no content either.

klesh · August 18, 2003, 17:09

Can ya get PM's from people on your ignore list?

geeslaka · August 18, 2003, 18:04

Easy way to find out, put yourself on your ignore list and try to PM yourself.

badams52 · August 18, 2003, 19:20

/me runs a quick test by following geeslaka's advice

It appears that PMs from those you ignore never show up in your PM inbox. Interesing thing was that once I unignored myself, the PM I sent to myself showed up. Interesting.

:) Smiley · August 18, 2003, 19:49

Slef-ignore. Now that's something. That wasn't why settler II crashed for all of today, was it?

H Tower · August 18, 2003, 20:06

we've been doing self ignore for years.

It isn't the problem.

DrSpike · August 18, 2003, 20:16

I am not going to ignore myself. It seems nonsensical to forgo such a rich source of wit and intelligence.

DanQ · August 18, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO
Asher was right last time he said that the server needed more RAM or processor or whatever (long time ago). I put my money on him. Dan and Mark, but especially Dan, tend to have very clueless troubleshooting. Anybody remember all the asking posters to run tracert, when its friggin obvious that the problem was not at the user or net level. But only at poly.

We know that the problem is with Apolyton's server. Finally, what is discussed in the "Downtime Reports" (in reference to a particular editorialization of yours above) are not accounts of the 'be all and end all' of the troubleshooting efforts.

------------
Dan; Apolyton CS