[Xitami] Questions configuring Xitami

[WhiteShepherd]

  Thanks for replying!


On 1 Apr 2002 at 11:34, Paul Reid wrote:

> > Won't the broadband connections take the lion share of the
> > bandwidth (being able to take more faster in shorter time frame)
> > leaving the dialups with the scraps of what they can down feed in
> > a bandwidth crunch?
> 
> The effect is insignificant. The chunks are small and Xitami serves
> data very soon after each packet is requested. The 56K connections
> tend to get about all the data they can handle.
> 
> > My experience with running Xitami under NT 4 was it would run fine
> > for a week to a month then Xitami would suddenly stop taking
> > connections.
> 
> Which Xitami? Under NT, the Service Version is most stable.
> 
> The TCP/IP stack in NT 4 is flawed (not as flawed as in Win31, which
> would stall every few days). However, my NT4 server runs for months
> at a time, has been up since September. What seems to stall it (or
> NT's IP stack) is certain FTP clients that my helpers use for huge
> site uploads.
> 
> One thing- Xitami on NT4 "appears" more stable on my P-350/128M box
> than it did on my P-150/32M box. While neither Xitami nor the TCP
> stack needs much memory, and indeed it tended to sit with 24-28M
> actually used, I wondered if there was something going on when peak
> memory demands forced a swap-file action. With Xitami, RealServer,
> and a VNC service running, I'm now using 40M out of 128M physical,
> so swapping just doesn't happen.
> 
> The TCP/IP stack in XP is totally new (actually lifted from one of
> the PC unix distributions) and reportedly better. But I've been
> happy enough with NT4's uptime that I have not cared to move to XP
> (and it certainly would not be snappy on a P-100/32M).
> 
>  -PRR
> 
> 
> --
> Xitami Users Mailing List -- For Xitami support
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.xitami.org/mailman/listinfo/xitami