1.6 Million IP Connections on FreeBSD 74
An anonymous reader writes "FreeBSD developer Terry Lambert, in a recent posting to the 'freebsd-hackers' mailing list, mentioned that he'd tuned a FreeBSD 4.4 box with 4GB of RAM to achieve 1,603,127 simultaneous IP connections, and goes on to say: 'As far as I know, I hold the single machine connection record for an x86 box.' This is an impressive achievement any way you look at it (though it begs the question of whether or not the box had any resources left to actually do anything with those connections...), and it speaks well of both FreeBSD's capabilities and Terry's skills and knowledge. I'm curious, though, if anyone has approached, matched, or exceeded that number elsewhere?"
Alternative Headline: (Score:5, Funny)
*BSD handles 1.6 million connections without dying.
Re:Alternative Headline: (Score:2)
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1)
as a non native english speaker I had
no bloody clue about the correct use of
begging the question...
thanx
remosito
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1)
2. ?????
3. PROFIT
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1)
Re:No need to beg. (Score:2)
You can't win. Just give up, you will live longer.
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1)
But what of the idealists? Perhaps we don't care how long we live, but just to spread the truth! (e.g., that conventions are found in a dictionary, but ignored out of arrogance.)
This has its problems, of course. For example, how do you really know if you get through to someone? And then, after a while, should you care at all? If you question someone, you are consistently attacked for being hubristic; when in reality you really can't fathom what they're thinking, yet they know they know everything.
There's a point at which clear speech doesn't work anymore, but establishing clarity goes a long way to extending its possibilities. Sarcasm, meta-funny jokes, and textbook "trolling" can make anything mean anything else. Acknowlegding this is the first step in making one's intent clear. But how do you make people desire clarity? I sure as hell don't know.
Perhaps unfortunately, I can't help but realize that people are wrong most of the time (I think slashdot is fairly representative of real life s:n, believe it or not). That's what I know. I know very little else.
If everything were not a personal attack on someone's faith in their own knowledge (which is humourous: they proclaim to posess the knowledge, yet refuse to show it for fear of being proven wrong, yet defend it anyway), then... well, that would be love.
Re:No need to beg. (Score:1)
Don't worry, though - it happens to alot of languages.
sure (Score:5, Funny)
What's your IP? - Re:sure (Score:1)
Re:sure (Score:1)
It was not quantity of pages served - it was amount of concurrent opened connections to box.
Re:sure (Score:2)
TGP? (Score:1)
Prove it... (Score:5, Funny)
Intellectual Property connections? (Score:1, Funny)
"What kind of artist are you?"
"I'm a 'Prior Artist'."
More Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
What has been tested is simply the number of concurrent connections. More practical would be simple retrieving of say 1kb data from a database and printing it out on a very simple HTML, and checking the maximum number of THESE connections. In effect trying to really httpblast DDoS style the FreeBSD with sheer number of connections. The box will have to be massive with 4GB RAM at least (we're testing OS here not hardware) and the connection maybe (multiple?) gigabit ethernet. The result would theoretically be lower than 1.6 million but we need to show FreeBSD can scale in practical tests like these. Results from a test like that will have the power to change vendors' minds from trying to run IIS and MS SQL for a high volume site.
Re:More Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
But i do think that serving out 1k of html would make the test a bit more solid.
Id be interested, given this narrow field thats being tested on how linux would hold up under the same tweaking, and what tweaking exactly that would require as compared to the freebsd (yes its probably trivial, but im just curious).
Re:More Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
Now if we could only see some actual hotmail pages served by that machine...
Re:More Interesting (Score:2)
Re:More Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
The original test is designed to stress the theoretical maximum number of connections, which exercises the network stack, in particular the pcb hashing mechanisms and multiple IP address handling.
The test you propose is a real world scalability test, which has a much different purpose.
"Connections" -- ? (Score:1)
Re:"Connections" -- ? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Connections" -- ? (Score:1)
FreeBSD is dying (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bahhh. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't steal anything that already free.
Re:Bahhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
IP Limit (Score:1)
Re:IP Limit (Score:2)
Nevermind that... (Score:1)
http://gomerbud.com/daver/computing/top.asc [gomerbud.com]
Any contenders?
Re:Nevermind that... (Score:2)
And it was still responsive enough so that the only report from the end users (a student lab of about 400 machines) was "the network seems a little slow today..."
Re:Nevermind that... (Score:1)
Take a busy machine that's mounting, say, email boxes via NFS.
Turn off the NFS server (or just wait for your P.O.S. EMC to crash
Wait a moment or three as it becomes unresponsive.
Type "uptime" and wait 3 minutes for it to return with a load average of 2085.
Now, actual CPU usage is the key. But getting a really solid stack is what FreeBSD excels at.
Re:Nevermind that... (Score:2)
Re:Nevermind that... (Score:1)
Re:Nevermind that... (Score:2)
64-bit version (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it does NOT fucking "beg the question" (Score:2)
It's shoot him, not shoot them! See http://webster.commnet.edu/sensen/part2/thirteen/p ronouns_making.html
Broken link. (Score:2)
Take this one [freebsd.org]
what a change, (Score:2)
Personally, I would be very interested in seeing how well the machine in this record-setting example handles an attack of the type mentioned in the above referenced article.