From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-xc30.google.com (mail-yw1-xc30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 941813B2A4 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yw1-xc30.google.com with SMTP id d190so1716648ywb.5 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 06:15:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to; bh=xxWYvR2+IemMMWYQvFOnP+Xw7YUoJGJfuS10ynJzlvg=; b=W/zq+4w/0TFYmfLkMr7rAlazFmJ+pRlugBq8sthnHd3K/z65T8LfDWSPyCqgJzGkl0 A12DGAoFhWLWWOq3SPYPV9c1PNL+buzikUdBB3SvkWi41ZoKJe9ISChn3OqxdoNQfvL7 QroHn4odU9g+tor21wH0XD+VbKOgH9u1XBytv6x/1arc0wIEE79KPZM+W1LmA14GU/z8 BpKPufwb4OTX9SamXuk19WGV+DbDXoHwszHeIlLSbxNT6xUCWY62yZmaR+WeG5WP+DYx f5O0CobMs7NA7Ur9khklIoBLA5a9p8C5Gyq2QvqpcFEFNxMzAqY3vFlBwC5Uk5m1nzzf g7aQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to; bh=xxWYvR2+IemMMWYQvFOnP+Xw7YUoJGJfuS10ynJzlvg=; b=moqOPuh5bRxTwRt8MBjzbsiOHs+8M+EFqgcXh4giZznbUquTAZwLYr4sjDTCUNgEvb VJX2JmMFsK3mMSKxDYzn/0E8dYeF/JomL9zb/ebxyrMsC9FRROEb8kiikINNqtT5qU+z yFwiSwr9HMYoXvGXzsOm4/PsTbcKXu1m3RZwBrMzWhbE2IdBmvrH3WzP1pYe/B/d2JnN m+KTEgiZFljx4h1/y4kEX/irOQVHlIf5X+V8W1ga6qKSTTsp2AWxV33WTgwhF2srhoZM KSMP5mRXtzmhXQHlbpRy7Q3sOxI8ihUZW7aFHYbzsSATWZY7jwYXxzFCo5HCzUogSwhI qnXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua9+b40UH3Tena1UQGll+FO/81+BElYN0tqraAa0Aw7euO1tugS SMeFHEHtnKRMzP8qHHb5Si1O8izn X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZCvGEEs3ueYoc/RBwj0aGVK2Ad+H6V3MMKlHNp5kJXJXHSXoFUNbgDEGetoVUyBxQwgNqGXQ== X-Received: by 2002:a81:3d45:: with SMTP id k66mr3915827ywa.279.1549376135743; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 06:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.253.110] (pool-71-241-201-36.port.east.myfairpoint.net. [71.241.201.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 141sm1646076yws.47.2019.02.05.06.15.34 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Feb 2019 06:15:34 -0800 (PST) From: Rich Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Message-Id: <3681429A-E3C2-4201-9D1C-5D049F208A66@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:15:33 -0500 To: bloat X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Subject: Re: [Bloat] Flent-farm costs X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:15:36 -0000 Dave wrote: > Costs on the "flent-farm" continue to drop. Our earliest linode > servers cost $20/month and our two latest ones (nanoservers) cost > $5/month. For "science!" I've been generally unwilling to > update/change these much ... I've been running netperf.bufferbloat.net (the netperf server that we = most publicize) for several years. It's a modest OpenVZ VPS from RamNode = in Atlanta. It has two failings: - It costs ~$16/month (I don't mind this expense, but $16/month >> = $5/month for the nanoservers) - About ever third month, its traffic goes over the 4TB/month limit, and = RamNode shuts the server off. I regularly run a script to find heavy = users and block their IP using iptables. (Many people are running a test = every five minutes for days at a time.) But that's a hassle. And buying = an additional terabyte per month from RamNode is $10/month, which gets = expensive. To address this, I stood up up a new (KVM-based) VPS with RamNode (also = in Atlanta, presumably in their same data center) that will permit more = in-depth iptables rules. My goal would be to look at connection = frequency, and if someone is trying to do every-five-minute testing, = limit their bandwidth to 10kbps.=20 This raises a host of questions: - For Science - the current netperf.bufferbloat.net is = atl.richb-hanover.com; the new server is atl2.richb-hanover.com. Do you = get similar performance from both servers? - Is this plan to bandwidth-limit abusers realistic? Will it be possible = to design rules that exclude abusers while allowing legitimate research = use? (I'm concerned that running five tests in a row in 10 minutes might = look like an every-five-minute abuser...) - Should I use one of the Linode nanoservers? - Should we move the netperf.bufferbloat.net name to use the existing = flent server farm machines? - Are there other approaches to supporting netperf.bufferbloat.net? Many thanks! Rich