Number of connection limits

slimothy, I did sent email to Dylan long time ago with info required, I never got a reply from him, and to be honest I did not expect to get one, anyway

Ok, I can only speculate about the connection limit, but this is nothing to do with speed, neither being capped. I can open just fine hundreds of connections while connected with a modem, provided the connections do not transfer lots of data constantly. Some P2P applications do open hundreds of connections simulatenously for various reasons, and it has never been a problem. I am monitoring my traffic and the problem occurs even if the current bandwidth usage is something like 2 KB/s.

Also I am using Linux, and I have no idea what is the TCP connection limit by default, but as this is supposedly server OS I am very sure that it is in order of thousands, so it is not the OS.

Also for TheRoDent, maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but WIndows XP got something like 2000+ active connections limit, which is very far from 10, and I am not sure what do you mean "half-open". Windows 2000 got 4000 or 8000 can't remember exactly, but it was more than XP. So the bottom line is, it is nothing to do with your OS, whatever it is!
 
As far as I remember Win XP had some problems with connections in TIME_WAIT state, causing the limitation, it is not a hard limit, but you still can't open more than certain number of connections over certain period of time. Also I think that the problem occurs mainly when the connections are open only for short period of time, but too many in a short interval, exactly what P2P does. Anyway I don't think that XP is a contributing factor to the WBS crap, I am not using XP at all (Linux and WIn 2000) and still have the same problems.
 
tibby, linux does too, it doesn't limit TCP connections granted but it does limit file pointers (sockets to internet connections or local file pointers) and if you've ever tried to make a server have a service that allows loads of simultaneous connections ( i'm talkign thousands running concurently) then you'd know you need to recompile the kernel to allow it.

Actually I don't think it is dual shaping thats the problem (port and packet) I just spoke to larytet who is a intelligent firewall *** (packet shaping) and he mentioned to me that because of overhead created when inspecting packets, (the ones involved in the TCP handshake, not EVERY packet) whcih is about 256k of memory or space when used with a database that rather than fall over and die the intelligent firewall will actually stop proccessing packets for that host, in effect, it will drop the packets required to make the connection. So I have to go back on my previous statement because it is entirley possible that they are dropping packets you use to connect to services rather than conciously blocking them, but in the end it causes the same effect. So I think the question is does WBS have the resources to packet shape effectivly while not infringing on users' internet experience.

If you take a small number say 150 people and they are all connecting to hundreds of computers on a p2p service (or any service they have packet shapign rules for) and they all do it at the exact same time, or at least sort of the same time that coudl then limit connections for other users while th epacket shaper does its thing. But I don't think it would limit HTTP connections in that case, probably more so non priority services, its a pretty interesting problem.

Of course no one will tel us anythign so its left up to our own imagination what the problem may or may not be caused by, but I think again, we need to take the ball on this one and tell the relavent people at WBS (damn I wish I had a techies number over there)
 
It seems to be a localised problem, I am using Olivedale tower and on reading this I opened all my favorites just to check, 40 + sites local and international, all opened, plus I am using Bit Comet with a fair number of outgoing TCP connections.
 
you are too lucky Darke, keep quiet, they may hear you, and then they will pull the plug and you will have very expensive and useless modem on first place :-)

yes slimothy, it may not be intentional, it is due to incompetence, as usual. First of all, under linux TCP connections are handled so efficiently that you can have something like 20 thousands of them easily on a single not extreemly powerfull box. I am not sure about the amount of overhead for checking packets, but if they are unable to do it properly (so it does not disturb us), they should not do it on first palce! I am busy reading on traffic shapping, and it seems that they can easily limit our bandwidth after the cap to 64 Kbps, without resorting into any crap that will make the overal usefulness of the connection being equal to zero.

For the last week or so, I wasted probably around 5 GB bandwidth, trying to download 1.3 GB worth of files, and I am very far from getting them still. And why is that? Because I cannot use any program to download the stuff I want, I must use only one of the very few working programs that are such a crap that I have no control over what they are doing with my bandwidth. So if the f*ckers were not doing all this bullsh1t, I would have my files already, I would have used near 4 times less bandwidth, and I would have been one happy customer ... now I am NOT!!!!!
 
slimothy said:
tibby, linux does too, it doesn't limit TCP connections granted but it does limit file pointers (sockets to internet connections or local file pointers) and if you've ever tried to make a server have a service that allows loads of simultaneous connections ( i'm talkign thousands running concurently) then you'd know you need to recompile the kernel to allow it.
Click to expand...

No.

echo -n some_large_number >/proc/sys/fs/file-max

No recompilation required.
 
you guys make me feel my 9 years in IT to be a drop in the bucket compared to the knowledge spewed in here.

TheRodent, you should consider becoming a teecha :P
 
In case this would help anyone, there is a patch available for Windows XP SP2 which claims to give more simultaneous connections. I could only have 10 max in Bitcomet, but after installing it it could go up to 256.
 
brooko said:
anyway why doesn't someone test the theory and try and do a multithread d/load with 12+ threads, see how many connect. remember to do the test when d/loading files from DIFFERENT server's as some server's may have a limit on connections to a single client....
Click to expand...

Before the reset of caps, I had about 2Gb left, so I decided to download some ISO's using FDM and Firefox Flashgot Plug-in. FDM is set to use 4 connections, but for some reason it decided to rather go for 16, and all 16 of them connected. Downloaded about 700mb in just over an hour.
 
I tested earlier with 12 threads,worked on all the sites i tried, all over 100KB speeds..
even my P2P is flying today....
Days like this you have to love Iburst
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X