Only getting 310KB from 10MB connection?

[patrickp]

What I get on the tiermigration page is the offer to upgrade to "bund03," which I presume is 3Mb, for £37.99 (a month, I presume). Says nothing about 10Mb.

[Mauldor]

Originally Posted by patrickp

What I get on the tiermigration page is the offer to upgrade to "bund03," which I presume is 3Mb, for £37.99 (a month, I presume). Says nothing about 10Mb.

When I checked at the start, all I got was Bund03 until One day it said 10mbit, my educated guess is that unless it says 10mbit then it is not Avail in your Area (I could be wrong) - I bascially was not going to Upgrade until it said 10mbit and CS just rolled out the "Not out till Dec onwards" line.

I must add this though, if you are getting a good constant 2mbit speed, then hold off as once you jump to 10mbit you speeds will be all over the shop (in my area they are) and save yourself some dosh until its a bit more solid I would say.,.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by AbyssUnderground

Apache has actually been proven to be slower than the webserver software that I use. Our community and a website called serverwatch tested the software and found that apache was about 35% slower than abyss web server.

Apache has no GUI and a very high memory usage and does not nativly support any scripting languages. Abyss Web Server has a very easy to use GUI and supports AHTML, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby and many other scripting languages.

Apache is also unstable, and I could quite easily take down any server running apache with a simple DDoS attack. Abyss Web Server has features to help prevent this happening. I know this because I had a friend DDoS msn.com and he succeeded quite easily. When he DDoSed me, he failed.

You should try the server and see what you think. You will be impressed.

Like many software apache is configurable, and dispite what you think a properly configured apache on a 100mbit port (even 10mbit) would not drop as easily as a server on cable upstream. The gui part of your argument says it all, abyss is probably wasting cpu resources alone on its gui. You may have what you think is a dedicated cpu but these shared hosting environments you put down are designed to host files and so even tho they shared they will respond faster then a windows box used for desktop purposes as well. Also take into account the hardware used, a webserver might well be a dual xeon with couple gigs of ram and for sure I would rather be sharing that then have a dedicated celeron for the task, in some cases like cable forum a busy vBB site will probably have its own dedicated server since it would be too much for a shared server but hobbyists site's no. Cableforum I would guess is on unix or at least a windows server os dedicated to the task and certianly not on a cable upstream.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by AbyssUnderground

There are many thousands of professionals running this software on their servers. You try and keep apache up and running with no faults for as long as you can and it will be beaten by abyss.

Anyway, why are we arguing? This is supposed to be a discussion!

There is no doubt about it, apache will probably remain the most widely used server in the world but those who prefer stability tend to look elsewhere.

9:30PM up 111 days, 22:36, 2 users, load averages: 0.16, 0.27, 0.25

[Chrysalis]

abyss your site is nice design tho, thumbs up for that and is fairly streamlined.

[jtwn]

Thats all fine and dandy if thats what you like to do in your free time but offering paid hosting if I guess thats what you are looking to do is wrong, wrong, wrong. No matter how you argue it being a good deal it all comes down to that you only have 25kB upload.

[Chrysalis]

yeah he defenitly shouldnt be selling hosting on that and that would be against the AUP I think as well.

[Phantasm]

Originally Posted by Phantasm

Im in exactly the same position. Got my 3mb upgraded to last night, the modem rebooted and was updated to 10mb. I get the full 50k upstream but my downstream hasnt really improved.

Same modem as you, my downstream SNR is similar to yours, but the
power level is much lower:

downstream receive power level 0.77 dbmv
downstream snr 34.82 db
upstream transmit power level 41.00 dbmv

Seems that NTL have been doing some playing because my speed has now improved to about 9000kbps.

[Mauldor]

I was teing mine tonight and the speeds were as low as 30KB/Sec and Upto about 210KB/Sec. I rang TS and she checked my Settings (Nice Lady with Indian Accent) and the Stream I was on was heavily loaded (probably with people downloading, Speed testing and god knows what else). She moved me somewhere else (sorry dont know technical term) and now my speed Vary better 700-900. Once the Novelty of downloading a file wears off for people, I guess my speed will reach full 10mbit type speed (or close to anyhow)..

[patrickp]

Originally Posted by Mauldor

When I checked at the start, all I got was Bund03 until One day it said 10mbit, my educated guess is that unless it says 10mbit then it is not Avail in your Area (I could be wrong) - I bascially was not going to Upgrade until it said 10mbit and CS just rolled out the "Not out till Dec onwards" line.

I must add this though, if you are getting a good constant 2mbit speed, then hold off as once you jump to 10mbit you speeds will be all over the shop (in my area they are) and save yourself some dosh until its a bit more solid I would say.,.

Thanks for that, Mauldor. Looks like I have to wait some, yet! ;-)

Originally Posted by patrickp

Apparently the NTL: 120 modems don't have 100Mbs capable ethernet ports, only 10Mbs. If your PC NIC/Router negotiates an inappropriate speed with this, you may wind up getting very poor performance: see this thread.

Looking at the posts on this, I get the impression this may only show as a problem with higher broadband connection rates.

I would beg to differ on the 100mbs

[Chrysalis]

the 120s do have 100 ports and I think the issue was they were negotiating with the ubr at 10 half and this has now been resolved.

[AbyssUnderground]

First of all, thanks for the comments on my site.

Second, I have never seen abyss use more than 2% cpu usage on my 1.3GHz duron server, so your claim that it is resource hungry it a load of rubbish. It has the smallest memory usage I have ever seen for any program, and this cant be said for apache which uses at least 40mb of memory compared to abyss's 3mb.

Yes my upload is 25KB/s but even then my website still loads faster than some professional sites. Also you should know the site is actually limited by me to 10KB/s so that shows even more how fast it is.

If you bothered to read the website properly you would see that Im not selling hosting, infact selling hosting on my connection is in breech of NTL's TOS, thats why it is free hosting. Ive never had any complaints from the 10 people I host from yet so it cant be that bad.

Just because you run unix, have apache, php and mysql and a 100Mbps connection does not mean it will be a fast website. The website is only fast if you have a fast server to process the scripts on it. You only need the fast connection for large images and files. My site loads in a little under 10 seconds which for most people is very fast. If I wanted I could make it even quicker but at the expense of a less professional and good looking website.

If you want to argue you case on how much better apache is (I stand by my decision that abyss is better, but its only my opinion) then you can go and argue on the abyss forums, www.aprelium.com/forum and see what they have to say about it.

I think you will find that several hundred people have switched from apache to abyss because it is so much easier to set up, configure and manage than apache is. Infact, I spend 2 days just trying to get php support for apache and still I never suceeded. I can have it set up in abyss in a couple of minutes.

I think I have made my point.