Pigeon wrote:
> Ok, lets assume I can get a network connection with:
> A)10mbit
> B)100mbit
> C)1000mbit
> And I will have 10k concurrent downloads (let us throw out 100k for now..
> because i can alwasy scale up figures if we get a base).
> (The reason I say 10k concurrent is because we have an update system (sorta
> like windows update).. and as soon as we tell their computer to update, we
> have 10k boxes saying give me the file!)
> So my question is..
> What would be the best (given we cannot do blades or the like since we have
> to use 'standard' 1u/2u/4u boxes from the dedi center).
> Should we definitly beat the problem with iron and get 5servers doing load
> balancing? 2servers? If 2servers go with the 1000mbit connection?

The short answer is that you need to benchmark using various
configurations. You have a particularly bad problem, what with
the per-request encryption beating on the CPU's, and the large
file size beating on the network (and putting your servers at
the mercy of the clients).

Pushing all of the solutions downstream like this instead of
coming up with a better front-end is going to cost you. This
all just screams for a more elegant solution than just asking
apache to stick it's finger in the dike.

Good luck.

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List modssl-users@modssl.org
Automated List Manager majordomo@modssl.org