1  |   Order by index

Sep 25, 2004, 9:42pm

I wish I was able to load objects faster then 9kb/s or so; Wish there
was an option to change the bandwidth limit on the world server admin.

--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Sep 26, 2004, 9:10am

Load object data or the atcual object files?

John

[View Quote]

Sep 26, 2004, 2:34pm

[View Quote] Loading objects.

--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Sep 26, 2004, 3:46pm

Uhh then what does that have to do with the world server?

John

[View Quote]

Sep 26, 2004, 7:54pm

He seems to think there's a bandwidth limit on the world server, but what he fails to realize is that download speed is dependent not on the world server but his Net connection.

[View Quote]

Sep 26, 2004, 8:27pm

[View Quote] Uhm, Exactly what I'm trying to say is why I only get a 9kb/s upload to
the world server. I am on a 415kb/s down and a 30kb/s up cable. The
server is a on a 100mbit, so there must be a cap on the world server
admin or something.

--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Sep 26, 2004, 8:30pm

[View Quote] And Eep, I didn't fail to realize that my connection would be slow. You
should probally get your facts straight before you conclude on something.

--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Sep 26, 2004, 11:20pm

You download objects from the web server hosting the object path, the world
server merely provides you with the link.

-Robbie

[View Quote]

Sep 26, 2004, 11:48pm

I do believe he's referring to the process of uploading a propdump via
remote admin client.

If this is correct, then I'd suggest checking with your host (err, unless
you're hosting it yourself) to make sure they haven't implemented some kind
of bandwidth cap for incoming data to the AW server. Otherwise, I don't know
anything about it, since I've never used the remote admin to connect to
anything but localhost.

[View Quote]

Sep 27, 2004, 11:37am

The world server has nothing to do with uploading objects o.0 that's your
OP host...

J

[View Quote] [View Quote]

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Sep 27, 2004, 5:39pm

I'm not speaking of my op, which is also on the 100mbit.

--

Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
[View Quote]

Sep 27, 2004, 5:40pm

Yes. That's what im speaking about; the thing is, there isnt anything
restricting me from caps, i watch my bandwidth meter atleast go to 9kb/s
tops upload the propdump via the admin client; I just dont know why its only
at 9kb/s.

--

Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2004, 5:12pm

Um, yes, you ARE if you're talking about UPLOADING objects (to the object server). Duh. Just because your upload CAPACITY is 30Kbps (KiloBYTE, not k: kiloBIT) doesn't mean you'll get that all the time--or even most of the time. And if you think your upload rate will be as fast as the supposed 100Mbit object server, you don't know squat about how data communication works. You're also not even talking about the world server but are instead actually referring TO the object server. The world server doesn't handle any object uploading at all.

In the future, learn how to write correctly. You didn't specify uploading or downloading--simply "load" which implies downloading/rendering.

[View Quote]

Sep 30, 2004, 5:22pm

I am talking about the propdump to the world server. And I was just asking
why it doesnt do the maximum speed you can do. And no, I did not say my
neither think my cable would be the same rate as my 100mbit. And I do know
some data commmunication, thanks.

BTW: If you don't like how I write, then dont even bother replying; just
ignore/trash it.

--

Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2004, 7:17am

I'm getting there...you're turning out to not be worth the effort...

Learn to say what you mean INITIALLY and perhaps you'll have better luck at getting answers to your "problems" sooner...

If you truly knew about how data transfers worked, you would understand that Net congestion, among MANY other factors, influence transfer rate. Do some tests and stop acting so helpless.

[View Quote]

Oct 1, 2004, 9:53pm

Mask has been hosting for a while, Eep. I have access to his world
server via the world remote admin tool and his server is connected at
100mbps to a managed switch in a professional data center located in
Missouri. The data center's network has a 99.999% SLA and uses
multi-homed bandwidth.

TheMask's server most likely won't be able to fully utilize a full
duplex 100mbps connection, however. One reason is that it usually takes
a pretty hefty server to push that much data. Mask's server is fast, but
it doesn't have more than one CPU and doesn't have any SCSI drives.

Secondly, even if he is connected at 100mbps, that is just to the
managed switch in the data center. In other words, he doesn't have a
full 100mbps pipe all to himself. He has to share bandwidth with other
servers in the data center. Also, there is overhead in certain protocols
like TCP/IP that cuts into the true amount of bandwidth he can really use.

Most likely when a host says "100mbps" it means that if the other
servers on the same switch are idle, Mask's server may be able to burst
up to 100mbps for a short amount of time if needed. Paying for a real
100mbps dedicated Internet connection costs lots of money, so it is
cheaper to buy a dedicated server in a data center for around $50 to
$500 USD per month.

In reality, Mask's server is probably able to sustain speeds closer to 5
to 20mbps. Either way, that is still much faster than most home
broadband connections and should be more than enough for simple world/OP
hosting. In addition, peering with other ISPs/networks is also better,
thus data is usually routed faster.

In you didn't know, a managed switch is different than say a home
Linksys switch you would buy at the store. Managed switches have their
own IP addresses and can be monitored in real-time. Good ones have dual
fans, power supplies, etc. in case of failure.

Now, with that out of the way...

What the Mask was referring to was transferring property data (that is,
doing a propdump) from his home computer to his server using the world
server's remote admin tool. True, his server has a faster connection
than his home computer, but his home connection is still faster than 8
or 9kbps. Network congestion could have played a role, but I doubt it.

I have done tests myself at different times throughout the day to a
world server in Florida and I experienced the same thing Mask is talking
about. My Internet connection was idle (besides being connected to the
world server via the remote admin tool) and I wasn't running any
software to limit or control my bandwidth. I haven't tried using
different versions of the world server remote admin tool during the
testing, however (I use 3.6 build 16).

The propdump.txt file being sent to the world server (not an object
path) was uploading/being sent very slowly -- around 3 to 4kbps. It
would only upload a few dozen objects per second. Other times, it would
work very fast and I could see it sending at least a few hundred objects
per second.

Now, what is the reason for this? Network congestion could be an issue
like Eep mentioned, but I have noticed this for months at a time since I
used to do daily backups via the remote admin tool. Downloading and
uploading backups to and from the server via FTP was faster than using
the remote admin tool.

So where is the problem? A partial explanation was a post made by
someone a long time ago. I forget exactly who made the post, but they
mentioned that the world server uses C Tree (maybe it is spelled c-tree,
I forget) databases to store most of its data. I believe the poster
stated that C Tree has very bad error checking code, if any at all.

When transferring data via the remote admin tool, it should make sure
that everything is being sent correctly and no data is being lost. Maybe
Chrispeg or 9 9 9 could look into the issue a bit more, but I think it
has to do with the way the world server imports data into its database
that causes the slow transfer speed.

As far as TheMask goes, he just needs to work a bit more on his verbal
and writing skills, Eep. :)

Builderz

[View Quote]

Oct 2, 2004, 1:12am

Thank you for thouroughly explaining that Builderz. That is the complete
explanation of what i'm trying to get at.

Once again, thanks :D

--
Signed,
TheMask

:: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Oct 2, 2004, 7:55am

If i remember well, they limited the max bandwidth for the admin tool to
ensure that the world is still accessible for others .
If you were able to use maximum bandwith ( like in a lan or with cable/dsl),
the world would become unresponsive to the others until it finished
processing all the data.
Of course, i may remember wrongly ;)

Regards,
MilesTeg


"themask" <ricky at whaletech.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:41560264$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> I wish I was able to load objects faster then 9kb/s or so; Wish there
> was an option to change the bandwidth limit on the world server admin.
>
> --
> Signed,
> TheMask
>
> :: Owner of Delusional-Minds Hosting ::
> Free world hosting.. Just a T-Gram will do it.

Oct 2, 2004, 8:41am

[View Quote] <snip good stuff>

Let me add some light to the shed:

Different AW applications/commands handled in a different way:

1, Query (browser) or combined cell d/l (admin tool propdump) sends a single request and the server sends back a whole bunch of prop record in one block
2, Build (browser) or object load (SDK,Admin tool propload) sends one small record for each object instead of the whole cell)

A query or object retrieval requires only a single database (Yes - it is C-Tree) query for reading, so the server side CPU activity is minimal, the network traffic is optimized (one request, long data response).
An object load (build) requires a few queries (for the sector and cell database) occasionally registry/encroachment calculation if the registry enabled.

Let me illustrate those scenarios with some numbers which I run on two different world server, one is on my LAN 300 MHz P3 and on a WAN 2 GHz P4:
LAN latency (ping response time) 200 usec 100 Mb/s network speed
WAN latency (ping response time) 7.8 msec 1 Mb/s network speed
Based on those numbers the maximum propload speed would be 5000 objects/sec on the LAN and 128 objects/sec on the WAN.
I run the propload with 165000 objects to both server and got some very interesting results:
1, LAN, no registry: I got 1480 objects/sec and %100 CPU utilization on the server
2, LAN with registry:I got 1360 objects/sec and %100 CPU utilization on the server
that shows that the upload was definitely CPU limited
3, WAN I got 225 objects/sec and only %30 CPU usage and %45 CPU with registry enabled. (avg network speed was 14 KBytes/sec)
That is a strange value - it is more than the theoretical calculation gives.
Several objects packed together by the socket layer to minimize the network handshake (the admin tool uses a callback for the aw_object_load) and it receives the success flags together for those objects. I never saw a larger than 600 bytes block where those objects were packed.
Doing several different tests I assume that approximately 3-4 objects of the prop file will go to the server in one packet but I can be wrong on that one.

Conclusion:
Measure the ping time between your server and your computer. This gives you the time the propload needs for each packet.
Assume that the socket layer is able to put an average 3 objects into a packet (this is the number I got from several different prop files).
Divide 3000 by the ping time (in milliseconds) and that one tells you how many objects/seconds you can upload assuming your upload speed is much higher than the traffic needs.
Take the server's CPU into your consideration, the slower the CPU the more time it will spend to insert the new object into the database.

YMMV,
--
Andras
"It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson)

Oct 2, 2004, 2:02pm

Limiting the bandwidth for the admin tool would make sense, but I don't
think AWI ever implemented it. I remember when I used to host A!!CT for
a very short while that whenever one of their CTs would try and do a
backup using the remote admin tool, it would use my full upstream speed.
As a result, the CT said that the world was very slow when doing
backups, most of the bots disconnected and people couldn't enter. I used
a third party program to limit the admin tool to a set amount of
bandwidth and it fixed the problem.

Builderz

[View Quote]

Oct 2, 2004, 2:19pm

This is correct. If you are using an MTU size of 1500 (the default for
Fast EtherNet), you should be able to fit around 1300 bytes of data in
one packet (I forget the exact amount). This goes for anything. For
example, if you have a GIF on your Web site and it is 750 bytes, it
should fit nicely into one packet of data. If the graphic is 40 KB, it
would take multiple packets before you completely download it. However,
if you use a different MTU, then it may not fit in one packet and two
may be needed. Each OS and most routers let you change your MTU.

Andras is also correct when he writes "the slower the CPU the more time
it will spend to insert the new object into the database." I had a
virtual private server for use with testing the world server and I was
only able to use a maximum of 256 MHz of CPU power. As a result, I did
notice that objects loaded more slowly than a server I had access to
that didn't limit the CPU power.

Good post, Andras. :)

Builderz

[View Quote] *snip*
> Doing several different tests I assume that approximately 3-4
> objects of the prop file will go to the server in one packet but I can
> be wrong on that one.

1  |   Order by index