From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.taht.net (mail.taht.net [176.58.107.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5AA43B29E for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 13:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from dancer.taht.net (unknown [IPv6:2603:3024:1536:86f0:eea8:6bff:fefe:9a2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.taht.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97E8321455; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 18:25:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Dave Taht To: Rich Brown Cc: bloat References: <3681429A-E3C2-4201-9D1C-5D049F208A66@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 10:25:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: <3681429A-E3C2-4201-9D1C-5D049F208A66@gmail.com> (Rich Brown's message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:15:33 -0500") Message-ID: <87imxsyg2z.fsf@taht.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 18:25:39 -0000 Given that donations cracked 160/month (thanks everyone), I would like to refund yours, and possibly netperf.bufferbloat.net into a linode server in atlanta. Not a nanoserver since it is loaded more than anything else. However I'd like to add you to the admin list (pls send ssh public key?) and also borrow your iptables scripts! As for the TB/month limit. I *think* our linode cluster is the sum total of all linodes. We rarely crack 10% bandwidth usage/month currently. Today's stats: 371GB Used, 17629GB Remaining, 18000GB Quota As "for science!" I am currently unaware of anyone actually doing science against any of the bufferbloat.net flent servers presently. That said, I've always thought having stuff in "other clouds" made sense, it's just that figuring out how to "use" and especially *maintain* other clouds - like aws and google's that's always been a problem. anyway I booted a new $20 dual-cpu linode in atlanta just now. As I've lost track of how to update bufferbloat.net (toke?) it is temporarily up at flent-atlanta.taht.net. (or dns should propigate in an hour or or so). It's such a joy to type a few apt commands and be "done" setting up a theoretically bloat free node..... I'll do a few tests over the course of the week. I have to admit the inital tests I ran were kind of disappointing, losing for example a ton of udp. some of the "science" we should have been doing was tracking what our cloudy provider was doing underneath us and on the path! http://flent-atlanta.taht.net/flent from that node to yours: avg median # data pts Ping (ms) ICMP : 10.52 11.60 ms 347 Ping (ms) UDP BE : 141.51 0.53 ms 40 Ping (ms) UDP BK : 134.33 0.53 ms 25 Ping (ms) UDP EF : 150.47 6.99 ms 70 Ping (ms) avg : 109.21 11.49 ms 350 TCP download BE : 221.67 221.47 Mbits/s 299 TCP download BK : 234.83 232.08 Mbits/s 299 TCP download CS5 : 228.35 220.72 Mbits/s 299 TCP download EF : 194.07 193.26 Mbits/s 299 TCP download avg : 219.73 224.68 Mbits/s 301 TCP download sum : 878.92 898.15 Mbits/s 301 TCP totals : 1180.11 1189.00 Mbits/s 301 TCP upload BE : 83.56 80.19 Mbits/s 266 TCP upload BK : 80.84 79.49 Mbits/s 267 TCP upload CS5 : 81.78 81.67 Mbits/s 267 TCP upload EF : 55.01 54.85 Mbits/s 263 TCP upload avg : 75.30 75.53 Mbits/s 301 TCP upload sum : 301.19 301.11 Mbits/s 301 Rich Brown writes: > 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. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat