So, we're on the new server, whats the speed like?

Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Forum rules
Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it
Post Reply

Is this new server faster than the old one?

Yes, MUCH faster!
16
36%
Yes, a little faster
9
20%
I see no difference
15
34%
No, a little slower
2
5%
No, MUCH slower!
2
5%
 
Total votes: 44

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12620
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

So, we're on the new server, whats the speed like?

Post by Andy »

Hello all,

Now that we're finally on, what is hopefully the last of changing servers for a long time, what do you think of the speed? Please answer in the poll or if an option isn't there that describes it for you, please post.

Comments and questions are of course welcome.

hounsell

Post by hounsell »

A lot faster, im getting a ping of 30ms

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12620
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

hounsell wrote:A lot faster, im getting a ping of 30ms
I get 39-46ms at home, so its very good

m4rkuz
FTP Access
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by m4rkuz »

Much faster now


Thats because Iam from Germany.


Ping is: 30-40


very good

markus

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

138ms Ping.

longview
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by longview »

Fairly quick in use, I don't see a huge difference in speed though.
Let's sperg about hardware
E6410 - i5-560m, 8GB, WXGA+, NVS 3100M, Samsung SSD 830 128GB, WWAN, 9-cell, E-Port Plus Replicator
Desktop - i5-2500k (4.3 GHz TB), 8 GB, HD6950 2GB, 2x24" 1080p, Samsung SSD 830 128GB + 2 TB stripe, Xonar D2X

Bender
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Post by Bender »

I'm getting a ping of 100ms to 150ms. Not bad, considering I'm running 5 torrents, and serving files off of a server...
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12620
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

With the server being hosted in Roubaix, France, its now roughly in the middle of the user base, eg, USA to the West and Australia to the East. This means its fairly fast to everyone and definitely faster for users in Australia.

Apache
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: Devon, United Kindom

Post by Apache »

I'm getting a ping of 25-30ms

Now that we are on the new server are you going to put all of the beta files on it?
|3e|\|

Image
Image
The Number One HTTP Server On The Internet

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12620
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

Apache wrote:I'm getting a ping of 25-30ms

Now that we are on the new server are you going to put all of the beta files on it?
Not sure yet. I'll decide soon. Problem is I'd rather not have the server taken offline if the DC decide its unsuitable to host. So I'm still debating whether to do it.

Apache
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: Devon, United Kindom

Post by Apache »

There is that yes
|3e|\|

Image
Image
The Number One HTTP Server On The Internet

idontknow
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by idontknow »

The site does not feel faster, but then again it was never slow to begin with.

There was this one time when my ISP broke something, and I couldn't access most sites, including Google, Wikipedia etc, but this site worked!

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

The new server is pretty good.
Except that sometimes, the page wouldn't load, refreshing wouldn't help.

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

Andy wrote:
Apache wrote:I'm getting a ping of 25-30ms

Now that we are on the new server are you going to put all of the beta files on it?
Not sure yet. I'll decide soon. Problem is I'd rather not have the server taken offline if the DC decide its unsuitable to host. So I'm still debating whether to do it.
Aren't our files hosted in the same datacenter anyways?

It's a bit slower on this end now, but I can't notice too big of a difference.
-Jeff

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12620
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

XDude wrote:The new server is pretty good.
Except that sometimes, the page wouldn't load, refreshing wouldn't help.
Yeah I'm having a small issue. Basically I'm downloading the beta's from SP server as a backup, and once it goes over 40Mbps it drops the connection for some reason. I suspect the NIC isn't working properly. I've requested the datacentre take a look at it for me.

DanielC
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by DanielC »

Well, this evening when the traffic is high ...
C:\Users\Utilisateur>ping betaarchive.co.uk

Envoi d'une requête 'ping' sur ip.betaarchive.co.uk [91.121.17.201] avec 32 octe
ts de données :
Réponse de 91.121.17.201 : octets=32 temps=38 ms TTL=117
Réponse de 91.121.17.201 : octets=32 temps=38 ms TTL=117
Réponse de 91.121.17.201 : octets=32 temps=38 ms TTL=117
Réponse de 91.121.17.201 : octets=32 temps=38 ms TTL=117

Statistiques Ping pour 91.121.17.201:
Paquets : envoyés = 4, reçus = 4, perdus = 0 (perte 0%),
Durée approximative des boucles en millisecondes :
Minimum = 38ms, Maximum = 38ms, Moyenne = 38ms

C:\Users\Utilisateur>ping sillyproject.com

Envoi d'une requête 'ping' sur sillyproject.com [91.121.97.22] avec 32 octets de
données :
Réponse de 91.121.97.22 : octets=32 temps=34 ms TTL=116
Réponse de 91.121.97.22 : octets=32 temps=34 ms TTL=116
Réponse de 91.121.97.22 : octets=32 temps=34 ms TTL=116
Réponse de 91.121.97.22 : octets=32 temps=34 ms TTL=116

Statistiques Ping pour 91.121.97.22:
Paquets : envoyés = 4, reçus = 4, perdus = 0 (perte 0%),
Durée approximative des boucles en millisecondes :
Minimum = 34ms, Maximum = 34ms, Moyenne = 34ms
... my server still pwns yours Andy, lol ...

More seriously though, the site is soooo much faster now!
The old server used to ping at over 250ms for me!

See Andy, told you OVH was worth it ...
~ Dan

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

I second that.
C:\>ping betaarchive.co.uk

Pinging ip.betaarchive.co.uk [91.121.17.201] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=114
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=114
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=114
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=114

Ping statistics for 91.121.17.201:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 133ms, Maximum = 138ms, Average = 135ms

C:\>ping sillyproject.com

Pinging sillyproject.com [91.121.97.22] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 91.121.97.22: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=115
Reply from 91.121.97.22: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=115
Reply from 91.121.97.22: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=115
Reply from 91.121.97.22: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=115

Ping statistics for 91.121.97.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 132ms, Maximum = 136ms, Average = 134ms

thenico
FTP Access
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:13 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by thenico »

$ mtr --report -c 4 www.betaarchive.co.uk
HOST: chaos Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 192.168.0.1 0.0% 4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.3
2. 10.239.44.1 0.0% 4 64.4 28.0 9.0 64.4 25.1
3. 213245255193.chello.fr 0.0% 4 9.4 10.2 8.1 12.3 1.9
4. 087231194101.chello.fr 0.0% 4 21.8 23.8 17.9 29.9 5.1
5. s181.dhcp212-198-4.noos.fr 0.0% 4 94.5 98.6 87.1 119.0 14.0
6. 087231193253.chello.fr 0.0% 4 90.5 84.7 76.0 94.3 9.0
7. s029.dhcp212-198-4.noos.fr 0.0% 4 108.8 86.7 75.2 108.8 15.6
8. 80.236.0.37 75.0% 4 70.7 70.7 70.7 70.7 0.0
9. ip-134.net-80-236-4.rev.nume 25.0% 4 82.5 78.4 76.1 82.5 3.6
10. 80.236.0.118 75.0% 4 129.9 129.9 129.9 129.9 0.0
11. 020G.rbx-2-6k.routers.ovh.ne 0.0% 4 83.1 90.5 83.1 102.7 9.2
12. rbx-4-m1.routers.ovh.net 0.0% 4 86.3 102.9 86.3 129.2 18.6
13. betaarchive.co.uk 0.0% 4 78.9 90.5 76.5 113.4 17.0

$ mtr --report -c 4 sillyproject.com
HOST: chaos Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev
1. 192.168.0.1 0.0% 4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1
2. 10.239.44.1 0.0% 4 19.8 27.5 18.2 36.3 9.8
3. 213245255193.chello.fr 75.0% 4 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 0.0
4. 087231194005.chello.fr 0.0% 4 16.5 28.2 16.5 52.8 16.7
5. s181.dhcp212-198-4.noos.fr 0.0% 4 72.8 86.5 70.6 102.2 17.1
6. 087231193253.chello.fr 0.0% 4 113.1 89.7 71.2 113.1 20.6
7. s029.dhcp212-198-4.noos.fr 0.0% 4 73.8 97.4 73.8 129.1 27.7
8. 80.236.0.37 50.0% 4 117.5 94.5 71.5 117.5 32.5
9. ??? 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10. 80.236.0.118 25.0% 4 80.4 88.6 80.4 101.6 11.4
11. 020G.rbx-2-6k.routers.ovh.ne 0.0% 4 96.9 96.7 78.3 126.6 21.4
12. rbx-30-m1.routers.ovh.net 0.0% 4 78.6 83.3 76.4 92.0 7.2
13. ns29013.ovh.net 0.0% 4 74.5 95.8 74.5 114.4 16.4
My ISP sucks !

zchri9
Donator
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:51 am

Post by zchri9 »

its faster for me now(im in Australia)

merty
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:03 am
Location: Australia

Post by merty »

I haven't noticed anything (Australia) maybe it's just my crap internet though 512kbs/64kbs.

Kirk
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:06 am

Post by Kirk »

I wasn't here for the old one...but I don't notice any issues with slow speeds.

-Kirk

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

Andy wrote:With the server being hosted in Roubaix, France, its now roughly in the middle of the user base, eg, USA to the West and Australia to the East. This means its fairly fast to everyone and definitely faster for users in Australia.
So far its ... MUCH slower
24mbps/1mbps connection

Pings between 356 and 362ms, nothing else running on my connection..


Kirk
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:06 am

Post by Kirk »

Happy Dude... I'm not getting anything *that* high...

Code: Select all

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6000]
Copyright (c) 2006 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\Kirk>ping -t betaarchive.co.uk

Pinging ip.betaarchive.co.uk [91.121.17.201] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=131ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=136ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=139ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=126ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=127ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=137ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=130ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=153ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=113
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=147ms TTL=113

Ping statistics for 91.121.17.201:
    Packets: Sent = 25, Received = 25, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 126ms, Maximum = 153ms, Average = 135ms
Control-C
^C
C:\Users\Kirk>
135ms average ping over here.

-Kirk

happy dude
Donator
Posts: 2461
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Post by happy dude »

Meh, still much slower than before

Edit: ping while most users are asleep...still bleh

Code: Select all

Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=453ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=356ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=453ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=362ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=360ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=361ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=358ms TTL=116
Reply from 91.121.17.201: bytes=32 time=359ms TTL=116

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

although I'm at dial up right now I noticed that the speed is faster now.

I will tell you the speed next week, when I'm back at university.
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."

Post Reply