1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.OS.LINUX.NETWORKING

  • What's the MAXIMUM amount of data that a server can hammer out?

    From Groo Vee@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 12 02:52:32 2020
    If I have the best CPU money can buy today, and the best SSD and best mobo - what is the maximum amount of data that a server can currently serve, assuming a static file (file.html) is being read from disk and sent straight to network, without "
    processing" of any kind? (i.e. "CGI scripts" or "PHP" etc - BACKENDS of any kind). I ask because there is a choice between a mobo with a 1GBps ethernet interface, and a 10 GBps one - if the server cannot shovel OUT data @ more than 1 GBps, it makes no
    sense to get the faster one.


    Thanks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jorgen Grahn@21:1/5 to Groo Vee on Sat Dec 12 15:05:35 2020
    On Sat, 2020-12-12, Groo Vee wrote:
    If I have the best CPU money can buy today, and the best SSD and
    best mobo - what is the maximum amount of data that a server can
    currently serve, assuming a static file (file.html) is being read
    from disk and sent straight to network, without "processing" of any
    kind? (i.e. "CGI scripts" or "PHP" etc - BACKENDS of any kind). I
    ask because there is a choice between a mobo with a 1GBps ethernet
    interface, and a 10 GBps one - if the server cannot shovel OUT data
    @ more than 1 GBps, it makes no sense to get the faster one.

    Do you have a /need/ to serve static data at 1 Gbps? Do you have a more-than-gigabit connection to someone who is interested in getting
    that data?

    It's an interesting and relevant question, but your use case seems
    weak.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Groo Vee on Sat Dec 12 12:48:16 2020
    On 12/12/20 3:52 AM, Groo Vee wrote:
    If I have the best CPU money can buy today, and the best SSD and best
    mobo - what is the maximum amount of data that a server can currently
    serve, assuming a static file (file.html) is being read from disk and
    sent straight to network, without "processing" of any kind? (i.e. "CGI scripts" or "PHP" etc - BACKENDS of any kind). I ask because there
    is a choice between a mobo with a 1GBps ethernet interface, and a 10
    GBps one - if the server cannot shovel OUT data @ more than 1 GBps,
    it makes no sense to get the faster one.

    Removing processing of any kind will actually slow things down.

    It's possible to read /more/ data (counted as uncompressed bytes) per
    second if they are read as compressed data off of the disk and then uncompressed by the CPU. Resulting in more throughput than if the data
    wasn't compressed.

    Likewise with the CPU applying the deflate compression to data before it
    goes out the network card.

    I work with servers that serve 9-10 Gbps per rack unit. 1U servers are
    serving 9.2-9.3 Gbps. 2U servers are serving 19+ Gbps. Multiples of
    these servers are saturating 100 Gbps uplinks and larger setups are
    heavily taxing 2 x 100 Gbps.

    Thanks.

    Sure.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From William Unruh@21:1/5 to Groo Vee on Sat Dec 12 20:07:39 2020
    On 2020-12-12, Groo Vee <groovee@cyberdude.com> wrote:
    If I have the best CPU money can buy today, and the best SSD and best mobo - what is the maximum amount of data that a server can currently serve, assuming a static file (file.html) is being read from disk and sent straight to network, without "
    processing" of any kind? (i.e. "CGI scripts" or "PHP" etc - BACKENDS of any kind). I ask because there is a choice between a mobo with a 1GBps ethernet interface, and a 10 GBps one - if the server cannot shovel OUT data @ more than 1 GBps, it makes no
    sense to get the faster one.

    Ethernets are rated at bits per second (Gbps) not bytes per second
    (GBps). Also if the computer is capable of faster behaviour it can use
    some of that to, for example, compress the data being sent out,
    resulting in a higher throughput. Thus for example, a computer capable
    of 100MB/s on a 1Gbps network matches the rate of the network, but a
    computer capable of 1GB/s can use the extra factor of 10 to compress the
    data and thus (say one acieves a 10-1 compression) achieve a 10Gbps rate over a 1Gbps network.
    (Note that this is pretty optimistic. If the data is all encrypted then
    the compression ratio will at best be 1 (no compression) so your
    analysis would be right. If the data were lineart pictures with loads of
    white and a bit of black. a 10 times compression could be possible. So,
    it depends.
    But yes, it can make sense to shell out for the faster one, even with
    the slower ethernet interface.


    Thanks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Groo Vee@21:1/5 to Grant Taylor on Tue Dec 15 04:30:03 2020
    On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 01:18:10 UTC+5:30, Grant Taylor wrote:


    I work with servers that serve 9-10 Gbps per rack unit. 1U servers are serving 9.2-9.3 Gbps. 2U servers are serving 19+ Gbps. Multiples of
    these servers are saturating 100 Gbps uplinks and larger setups are
    heavily taxing 2 x 100 Gbps.

    What are they serving, out of curiosity? Video?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Grant Taylor@21:1/5 to Groo Vee on Tue Dec 15 09:39:37 2020
    On 12/15/20 5:30 AM, Groo Vee wrote:
    What are they serving, out of curiosity? Video?

    Sorry, I'm not at liberty to say.



    --
    Grant. . . .
    unix || die

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)