Bandwidth Used [Archive] - Live for Speed

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 00:05

Maybe its because i'm tired or maybe i'm just not that bright, but I can't seem to find on the FAQ or forum searching the equation for how much bandwidth is used - and I know i've read the information before somewhere.

When I move house I want to setup a 24/7 server in the garage, and I need to figure out what broadband connection I should get to make it run 20 cars.

I figured working out how much data per second multiplied by 4 should (to allow for other local machines using the net and decreased latency) be what I need from my upload speed.

I looked into server rental and they all charge a fortune for Windows Server 2003 machines, I only need XP Home & VNC for what I need ! I figure paying the rental as a bigger broadband bill will have better side effects :).

NotAnIllusion

15th May 2006, 00:11

Not an equation, but you can just multiply the values (in the 2nd link)

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=54213#post54213
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=45639#post45639

filur

15th May 2006, 00:23

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=112896#post112896

I think it's right. :)

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 06:30

Thank you :)

The figures seem to suggest 1mbit upload is going to suite my purposes, which is actually less than I thought.

SamH

15th May 2006, 09:31

Is 1mbit going to do it for 20 cars? I think 1mbit falls short about 50%, but I'm still slurping on my first coffee of the day so I could be EVEN more wrong than usual. 160KB is needed for 20 cars, but 1mbit is ~100KB up.

[EDIT] ::slurp:: plus once your 100KB is used, downloads begin to suffer. I don't think 1mbit up is gonna do it :(

DEVIL 007

15th May 2006, 09:58

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 10:35

As an aside, you may wish to try renting a VDS / VPS. They tend to be cheaper. Even more so, are linux VPS / VDS; which it is possible to run the dedicated server on, under WINE.

In my experience the cost of a pipe to your house, thats got a decent upload will be equivilent to a rented virtual or real server. Check out poundhost.co.uk if you're feeling really cheap. They're a little iffy, and do have random downtimes in the middle of the day for a few minutes every few months, but they are very cheap and dont monitor their bandwidth usage at the moment (at least for colocated boxes).

lurcho

15th May 2006, 10:43

I have 2 meg adsl with 256 upload and i've had 11 cars on my server with no lag:thumb: hope this helps.

SamH

15th May 2006, 11:53

Check out poundhost.co.uk if you're feeling really cheap. They're a little iffy, and do have random downtimes in the middle of the day for a few minutes every few months, but they are very cheap and dont monitor their bandwidth usage at the moment (at least for colocated boxes).
I'm SOOOOOOOOO not going to say what I have to say about the MD of Poundhost. I've never before actually gone ahead with filing a complaint with trading standards, but Mr Munson drove me to it.

There are lots of other options out there. For about £100/month you can lease a pretty good Win2003 server in a datacentre that isn't Redbus (also important IMO), with unlimited or as good as unlimited bandwidth(600+Gb/month without exceeding theoretically imposed and effectively unimplemented limits.) on a month-by-month basis.

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 13:20

I'm SOOOOOOOOO not going to say what I have to say about the MD of Poundhost. I've never before actually gone ahead with filing a complaint with trading standards, but Mr Munson drove me to it.

There are lots of other options out there. For about £100/month you can lease a pretty good Win2003 server in a datacentre that isn't Redbus (also important IMO), with unlimited or as good as unlimited bandwidth(600+Gb/month without exceeding theoretically imposed and effectively unimplemented limits.) on a month-by-month basis.
I must admit, those who I know with rented servers, they arent happy and all but one guy has moved away.

On the other hand, the colocation isnt dealt with as badly in my experience. Either this is because they're not managing / maintaining the boxes, or they see it as a better income and dont want to piss you off.

PH do have their moments, and tbh I'm rather happy to put up with the crap and the lack of monitoring due to the traffic that goes through my boxes, and that they dont bill properly for remote hands. Of course, my personal experience is only with their colocation.

At the end of the day, PH are cheap, and this is just about all that they're good at. If you want something decent then pick gigeservers or just about any other company in existance. You get what you pay for in the hosting and colocation world; just make sure its not some geek's second job. The last thing you want is to pick up off a reseller and then find you get no support until after the 9-5 job he/she holds.

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 13:52

you'd have to maintain the box yourself, all a lot of fuss when you can pay someone else to do it just as cheap.

I didn't even consider using a box in my garage until I saw what LFS was using. 256kbit/sec for 20 players is hardly a problem. I live in the UK where sensible broadband speeds are becoming more readily available. One provider is offering 8mbit downstream free of charge provided you take their more expensive telephone package. Sure that's not upstream speed, but 256mbit isn't an issue.

I'd rather pay for a faster connection at home and have tertiarry benefits then pay a datacentre who will then charge me to reboot the computer.

Maintaining the box myself is a huge advantage. I'm a multi-platform engineer, programmer and tech support guru. (Actually I try to avoid engineering because it cuts my hands up) There's just no way i'm going to pay a ton of cash for someone to press the reset button on the front.

Linux worries me though, it's not a platform i've personally worked on and I only have the vaguest knowledge of it from the little bit of Unix I sometimes have to scratch the surface of. If I had a Linux box installed at a datacentre i'd almost certainly end up paying extra for support.

I definately want a Windows based box - I dont really care about security i'm not holding credit cards. I just dont want to pay £50 or so a month because of the Windows 2003 license cost, as that is what a rented server seems to cost from the budget providers, that's more than the cost of a high speed home internet connection - and only comes with a 256kbit connection !

I'd much rather build the box myself and install the software I want (LFS dedi host, my own server side-app, VNC, and possibly a <low bandwidth> dedi server for a game I wrote that no-one ever plays ( http://www.bansheestudios.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=270 ).

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 13:57

You've got a fair point tbh Becky, and I wish you luck with the server :)

Just one thing I still dont understand; why people use VNC on windows machines these days. Has no one heard about RDP?

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 14:12

Because VNC is mullti-platform and I don't just use PC's :)

filur

15th May 2006, 15:55

256kbit/sec for 20 players is hardly a problem.

Um, 256kbit/s is 32 Kb/s, enough for ~11 players at the lowest pps.

Krane

15th May 2006, 16:55

Has no one heard about RDP?Frequently Asked Questions About Remote Desktop

Is Remote Desktop available on Windows XP Home Edition?
A.

No, however you can upgrade from Windows XP Home Edition to Windows XP Professional to get Remote Desktop. You can use Windows XP Home Edition as the client for accessing your Windows XP Professional computer running Remote Desktop.

Besides, I guess it comes with the usual Microsoft quality bugs and hole, and I don't think you can change the port for added security.

When I forget to start the server, It's much easier to tell to a computer illiterate over phone to start that program than to go there and there and there to enable RD.

You can access a VNC server from any computer with only a web browser and java installed on it. I don't think you can use RD with tightly locked corporate/public access computers.

Also I don't use any MS software if there is alternative that doesn't totally suck.

With VNC, I mean UltraVNC - http://ultravnc.sourceforge.net/
I haven't never actually used windows' RD... But for my needs, UltraVNC is perfect. Only nitpick is that the server comp is occupied when using VNC, but I think you'd need Win Server 2003 to over come that...

Jakg

15th May 2006, 17:09

VNC rocks (esp for grabbing that file off my pc to my pda or setting something up!)

bal00

15th May 2006, 17:42

What about a shared Windows server? Some place here in Germany is offering these accounts including 5gb space and 600gb bandwidth for like 10 € a month.

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 18:36

Granted, its not supported in XP Home. That said, if you're using XP Home in a way that requires VNC, perhaps you should be rethinking things?

Besides, I guess it comes with the usual Microsoft quality bugs and hole, and I don't think you can change the port for added security.Yes you can change the port. Its a registry hack though. With regards to the security of it, I'd say its more secure than VNC because of how VNC works - if someone leaves the console logged on, you're screwed with VNC as soon as someone cracks the VNC password. Not the case with terminal services / RDP (I guess this could potentially be a flaw, its a matter of opinion). Personally I'd like to see the opportunity to have a keys system in both VNC and RDP (a la SSH), rather than having to exchange passwords.

You can access a VNC server from any computer with only a web browser and java installed on it. I don't think you can use RD with tightly locked corporate/public access computers.We lock down all our machines we administrate, because we arent on any of our customers sites (we're remote) they are RDP'able both from and to. I'm yet to come across the GPO option to lock down the RDP client tbh; so I'm guessing its a manual thing. If you're running a windows server with sharepoint, then similarly you can access your work PC via a web interface. Granted the give downer is that it requires ActiveX, and thus IE (which I am not a fan of) :(

Also I don't use any MS software if there is alternative that doesn't totally suck.Usually I'd agree, but since RDP runs at kernel level its about 20 times faster. Plus you get domain / computer authentication. I suppose you could say this is a flaw, but at least I can enforce password length etc. with gpo's. With VNC anyone could change the password once they're in, if some tit leaves the console logged on... Of course on the other end of the scale, if its not left in, it is a dual security of "crack this VNC password...oh shit, now its the windows auth as well!". But in normal circumstances, its hard to find this happen in my experience.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total windows monkey, but I believe that we should support Microsoft in what they do well. Its my opinion that RDP is one of those things (with exception of the Remote Web Workplace requiring ActiveX). Its similar to X forwarding over SSH, or FreeNX perhaps, rather than VNC.

You can't just hate Microsoft because they're Microsoft (its a crap reason). Sure they have a virtual monopoly on the market, and a lot of software they write is buggy, flawed, etc. I've voiced my opinion and preference over Open and Free architecture many times both here and other places on the 'net and in "real life". Usually only to be called a raving communist, so I find it a little strange that people still get the opinion I love "teh Windows" and that "Windows is the way".

Only nitpick is that the server comp is occupied when using VNC, but I think you'd need Win Server 2003 to over come that...To be precise you'd need something capable of terminal services. This includes almost all recent versions of windows server (2000+).

As a little aside, these days I can even use my linux machines (with X installed) to RDP to customers sites, using the rdesktop package.

SamH

15th May 2006, 18:47

[Removed] All said by others :)

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 19:50

I havn't looked at RDP because I work on Mac's, I had to work with Apple's software but found a few key drawbacks in that it used the server/password method which is just a plain security hole - that's assuming you get the customer to setup the port forwarding for it to work, something i'd rather do via remote control to be honest.

So instead I wrote my own little VNC applet that instead of working as a password protected server (which it can actually do, but I never use) it simply invites the listening application sitting on my machine in the office. So the user initiates the invite.

The concept isn't new and I cannot claim credit, it's secure so can be used on a customers site, it bypasses router configuration at the customers end - and best of all because VNC is an open standard, and in the case of my own applet I wrote it myself so that it wouldn't have any options the customer could mess up, it's free :)... Plus it interfaces with VNC on the PC flawlessly :).

Hense i'll be putting VNC on my LFS server.

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 22:43

I get the impression Becky, that you have too much [free] time on your hands sometimes :) Either that or you have a set of very free-range superiors :D

/me is quietly jealous

Becky Rose

15th May 2006, 22:59

What because I coded a VNC applet? That was work related, and i've so much coding experience I produce programs extremely quickly. I do browse the forums during the day but only between calls as most of my work time is response based - meaning I need a customer to be in dire straits before I need to do anything, and sometimes everything is ticking over nicely.

I maintain somewhere around 3,000 machines at the moment, mostly Macs with some PC's and around 350 or so servers. So I do get busy sometimes, like this morning when I had two servers go down and had to pick up a server job from another tech who couldn't solve it, all had to be back up and running "immediately".

So yes sometimes I have a bit of time, and days like today I am just finishing work now at midnight having been working since 8am. I'm still on call for emergency though - I will have the phone by my bed.

Envy me if you like... But your life would have to be pretty dire ! lol

the_angry_angel

15th May 2006, 23:52

It wasnt just because of the VNC applet, but also because of the other projects you seem to beable to make time for, as well as visiting the forums and managing time for LFS and your other racing experiences, plus who-knows-what.

Similarly I work nuts hours although almost purely with Windows servers and desktops, but I rarely get any time to get any coding done these days :( I can't say that I envy your Mac situation tbh. Probably only because of my irrational fear of them :o Although I would like to get more time to dedicate to open projects, just like the Good Old Days(TM) :(

I'm seriously impressed by whatever it is that keeps you going; be it very good time management or dedication :) Initially I had you down as a "bit of a madam" tbh, although I've quickly come to respect you a lot :)

Racer X NZ

16th May 2006, 04:10

Just a quick note for Becky Rose, RDC does work on the mac, there's a copy on the Microsoft site, - http://www.microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=remotedesktopclient

This really rocks and I wouldn't use anything else to connect our macs to a 2003 server for running windoze software.

I recon you could get LFS running on a mac using this, just not keen on being sprung loading it on the server & the lack of a decent graphics card on said server stop me.

It also allows you to connect to xp pro boxes but there is an issue with the number of connections.

Becky Rose

16th May 2006, 06:11

I'm seriously impressed by whatever it is that keeps you going
Cheap caffeine in large quantities :).

the_angry_angel

16th May 2006, 14:13

I recon you could get LFS running on a mac using this, just not keen on being sprung loading it on the server & the lack of a decent graphics card on said server stop me.Anything under RDPv6 doesnt support DirectX, because of how it works. Unfortunately v6 is only available in Vista at the moment. Even then I don't think I'd want to use it for ages...imagine the lag. Plus I dont think you can "drag" USB input controllers as you can with printers, etc.

An interesting idea / challenge though...

Becky Rose

16th May 2006, 15:04

I dont get the argument, what is the Apple+Microsoft Remote Desktop solutions if it is not VNC? It's the same thing it's just that one of them does not have a corporate logo stamped on it.

the_angry_angel

16th May 2006, 15:27

Its mostly to do with authentication (i.e. domain / local, or VNC's own - I'm afraid I've not kept up with VNC recently, but as far as I'm aware it still doesnt hook in to external auth servers?), and the level at which they operate. RDP works at either the low OS or the kernel level (depending on what its doing), intercepting the GDI stuff and making little jpg's for each unique item. VNC makes a screen shot of the entire screen - which is slower to update as you have to update the whole thing, every "refresh" (assumes that you're not running a hook driver for VNC).

Plus the other big advantage to RDP is that you dont have to be logged on as a console user (provided that you're connecting to a Windows server).

Edit: Ah, I see UltraVNC does Windows auth as well now, but the other VNC derivatives dont.

Becky Rose

16th May 2006, 16:59

What security risk? Any technical support based installation of VNC or RDP should have user initiated invites.

When I connect to customer machines there isn't even a password... I put a password field into the application just to reassure customers, it isn't used ! :)

As for VNC's system of sending the screen as an image, it portalises the screen so it doesnt send the whole thing. I can see the advantage of GDI hooks if you're just using Windows based applications - I wonder if Microsoft ever realised there's more to life than Windows... What happens in RDP if I remote access to 3dsMax running an OpenGL viewport? I've no idea and i'm not berrating it - i'm asking, because it sounds like it wont display the openGL viewport.

In any case the purpose of VNC is to see what is on the customers screen, not to recreate the problem at my end by hooking the system and recreating it.

From a support point of view I just dont see the advantages of moving away from an inhouse product to a Microsoft product one, or an Apple one, I hope that answers the original question :)

Leachman

23rd May 2006, 16:30

I came across this thread while looking for dedicated server / insim documentation, and noticed a few things being discussed on other issues.

For the curious, RDP was actually developed by Citrix, which was a breakaway group of OS/2 Egineers from IBM. They licenced the NT 3.51 source code for 350k and hacked up a console mux to emulate a multi-user environment like UNIX. It has been refined over time and is now quite mature, though windows will never really be multi-user without a complete rewrite. Citrix sold terminal services back to Microsoft for several hundred million dollars.

The real gem here is the ICA protocol which is extremely light, secure, supports encryption as well as OS hooks for authentication and authorization incuding PKI, LDAP or any other native authentication and authorization technology.

Now, I'm a UNIX guy for years and have been building multi-platform development environments since the early 90s, so I'm definitely not coming from a perspective of a microsoft fan. The RDP protocol is a world beater. VNC is free and OK for home use, but nobody working for me would be using it in a production environment. Were I the customer, I would be sure that authentication ties into some LDAP implementation or other, using the ICA protocol if remote console was necessary.

Then again if the customer needs someone to remote control their boxes for support purposes, they're screwed anyways, they just don't know any better. Do yourself a favour and require authentication. You don't need the responsibility of an incident falling squarely into your lap when it is discovered that you left a welcome mat on your customer's machines. Believe me, if there is an incident, it WILL land with you rather than the company. Having the cute invite required thingy is great, but dont bet your job on it.

Becky Rose

23rd May 2006, 16:57

You don't need the responsibility of an incident falling squarely into your lap when it is discovered that you left a welcome mat on your customer's machines.
Sorry Leachman, but your suggestion is less secure. The reason is you are still thinking traditional server/client. For true security you need to think backwards. It's this backward thinking that makes my way more secure, plus makes it easy to setup for my customers - just open the program and click (these are the key features I need).

You are thinking about authentication systems and password encryption and verification like somebody who works on big systems and networks. Perfectly understandable, but it means you are approaching the problem of security from the traditional direction, which to me is backwards, because I think out of the box.

My clients have no open security holes, no ports setup on their router (which is good because I cannot set that up for them with VNC and if I need to use VNC to get them to click stuff then they're not up to editing a router NAT table), and most importantly it leaves no services running on their computer.

I do all that at my end, my router points to an open port on my computer at work. When i'm on a support call the customer invites my router IP via my application, which forwards the request to my computer, which I only setup to listen when I instruct a customer to invite. I get a request pop up on screen and I then take control.

There's no service running at their end, they initiate the connection, I am the server.

It's backward, but it's way better than setting up authentication servers and NAT tables and all that other stuff you big systems guys love for no other reason than it confuses the hell out of small systems users... :) And it's that confusion which would defeat the whole purpose of using remote control for support purposes.

At the end of the day the biggest drawback of VNC is it is slower than RDP, but i'm using Apple + PC computers, VNC is fully portable between the two and most importantly, my application doesnt stay running after it's been finished with. RDP, whether Apple's (which is aweful) or Microsofts (which I havnt used) implementations use a traditional server/client model which is always going to be vulnerable unless you set up all the complicated hackable systems you are talking about ... because you can guarantee that somewhere somebody knows more about security than the pair of us put together.

Leachman

23rd May 2006, 17:52

Sorry Leachman, but your suggestion is less secure. The reason is you are still thinking traditional server/client. For true security you need to think backwards. It's this backward thinking that makes my way more secure, plus makes it easy to setup for my customers - just open the program and click (these are the key features I need).

You are thinking about authentication systems and password encryption and verification like somebody who works on big systems and networks. Perfectly understandable, but it means you are approaching the problem of security from the traditional direction, which to me is backwards, because I think out of the box.

You are saying that no authentication is better than authentication. You must work for a very small company with no overisght on your work. I would fire any employee of mine who placed the company and our customers at risk like that.

I am sorry, I tried to help you but this is going nowhere. I considered explaining why the above is exactly counter to a sane approach but I'm not going to bother. You realize that (without telling us much) you have informed us exactly how to compromise your solution?

EDIT: Just wanted to clarify something Becky. I'm not trying to attack you. Use what you like the RDP / VNC thing makes no difference. But for your own sake, consider having the service require a password at least. Good luck.