You kNow wHo yOu aRe
BT Rep: +25
The questions:
1) Is this really usefull or should i go for single 100mbit line only?
2) If i use debian/Ubuntu with two different VNC servers/remote desktop then can each one be configured to use different NIC?
3) If a single VNC server/remote desktop is used then can both the NIC be used to run on the same uTorrent + wine?(or we need two different instances)?
Any help will be highly appreciated
~ApeX
You kNow wHo yOu aRe
BT Rep: +25
BUMP!!! .. no one knws anything abt this?
BT Rep: +1
You're gonna have to be more specific buddy.
Hosting IE...you mean internet explorer? as in webpages?
what hosting company, what server setup
Do each of the 100mbit lines get their own IP address or do they share one?
This is what he talking aboutOriginally Posted by jimby73
http://hosting-ie.com/content/view/15/48/
You kNow wHo yOu aRe
BT Rep: +25
Hosting IE is a reseller of KeyWeb
I am looking at dedicated 2 NIC servers Rabtor series ..
¿ןɐɯɹou ǝq ʎɥʍ
BT Rep: +3
The two NIC's are used for difference instances of utorrent etc. This gives you the ability to dedicate multiple instances of programs to different IP addresses and use the bandwidth of two NIC's instead of one. Using this server is advantageous for two people sharing a seedbox, since they will both have a 100mbit NIC to use.
You could bridge the two NIC's though and use the bridge connection for utorrent (if you are using Windows 2003), but I have not dealt with FTP over a bridged connection .
4d7920686f76657263726166742069732066756c6c206f662065656c73
FileSharingTalker
BT Rep: +24
doesn't it work as he has to assign a different port to each utorrent instance and route their traffic to each different NIC ?
but the question is: are the HDD hold the stress? or your box also has 2x HDD and u will assign each utorrent to each HDD to avoid conflicts?
(this will anyway put stress on the controller, but that's a whole different issue).
¿ןɐɯɹou ǝq ʎɥʍ
BT Rep: +3
The network bridge becomes a separate network connection (assigned its own internal IP address). Utorrent is then bound to this network connection and the O/S handles the data throughput to the NIC's. The seedbox in question has 2x160GB HDD. I still think for the extra cost involved, this server is a better option for two people sharing a seedbox, rather than one person trying to double the throughput since the network bridge itself will still be a bottleneck under this scenario.
4d7920686f76657263726166742069732066756c6c206f662065656c73
You kNow wHo yOu aRe
BT Rep: +25
I think i have now understood the whole scenario .. I think the following approach would be the best
We associate each Utorrent instance to the each NIC. Now after this binding we associate each utorrent to a seperate hard disk . This will minimise the Load on each controller and the Hard Disk.
But a came across a guy who has the two NIC bridged on a RAID 0 configuration .. The speeds he was getting were awesome .. I am in office so i dont have the Screenshots but i remember he was uploading 18mbps and downloading at 9mbps in one SS which sounds awesome ..
So any idea guys on what should be the optimum configuration ?
FileSharingTalker
BT Rep: +24
well, keep in mind that RAID0 configs will speed up a lot your access times due to reduced redundancy. And those allow faster reads and accesses, reflecting on the UL you can do, should your line not be the bottleneck here. But keeping both disks each one assigned to an instance of utorrent is a good solution in case the RAID0 is not allowed on your server config. This is done via Raid Controller BIOS, so it must be enabled prior to OS install for perfect performance.
About the bridge, i can't be of much more help as i've never set one up.
i have 2x 1Tb Maxtor 32mb cache HDD on my home server and it's smoking fast. Never really had them in stress as my home network is not gigabit, is 100/100. But they DO multitask and stream a lot.
hope i was of some help.
Last edited by Cabalo; 11-20-2008 at 07:18 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks