How many concurrent requests it can handle?
I have tried that, and I could not figure it out.
I could overload it by sensing 1000000 http requests for index.html per second,
and sure it got stuck (needed reboot) (just used wget in a loop).
Have to look at that httpd server code some day.
But let's have a reality check.
I have run a webserver (panteltje.com) now for several years.
Apart from ever more irritating search bots, there are not too many real download at the same time.
When killing the search bots (for example by using a simple login screen (.htaccess) as I do
sometimes), you reduce bandwidth and disaster 100%.
From the X GB / day or so, only a bit is left from searches from real people, and downloads of
some open source programs I wrote by real people.
It is my view (and industry better be aware) that as many people will run a personal server
(rather then be handicapped by an ISP) then on that _personal_ server only a limited amount of files
and hits will happen.
This is the whole issue.
With zillions of personal servers (both wireless local, or wired via the internet) not having
to run a PC with > 100W power 24/7, but say use only 5W (as I do here), would save some nukulear
power stations
Looks like it's dead. Will try again later - I'm really curious to
see what it's capable of.
I had switched it off, it will be on later for a few hours, if you name a UTC time you can
try, then I can switch it on for an hour before and after if you like.
Surely not capable to handle .NET framework (or Java Beans, if you
want to stay away from evil M$). You say it can't do even scripting.
So what remains? Static HTML? Welcome back to the Web of early 1990s
Right, this is an other point, I run no web crap and no advertising.
And even advertising I can do better with plain html then all the irritating bandwidth slurping
crap fired at me when surfing CNN or other sites.
They need the revenue though, but if you asked me about three advertisers on any of these sites
I could not mention more then 1.
Selling web ads is the largest con in history _NOBODY_ reads these, at least not somebody
seriously looking for something say via google, even less if it is non-related like
you see on so many sites (I may well click on a google side link if it claims to have what I
look for), but NEVER on an add for cars when I read the news.....
If you look at the main site:
http://panteltje.com
real big server:
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/wap54g/
is the same as:
81.207.135.196:80/panteltje/wap54g/
5W server:
81.207.135.196:82/panteltje/wap54g/
it is only that port 82 is redirected in the NAT translation table in the DSL modem...
So if I was to switch off the main server, I would simply change NAT so point 80 points
to the small server.
There are some more issues with name servers... that is why I gave numeric IP address
because if I switch of the main servers he DNS would die too, and you could never find
panteltje.com..
Anyways, try the main server, you will see the simple html is faster cheaper better,
and as such more reliable.
What is the storage capacity of the box? Is it enough for just one
song at decent bit rate? Or you pull them from a real PC on your LAN
that has a real PSU with real power consumption?
You fail to see the point.
I have added a SDcard (small electronic modification, and in theory server data space
is now only limited by the size of the card, there are no harddisks).
1GB cards now go for 10$ here.
I have about 220 MB on line now (because of the file system I use, have to recompile some stuff
later to support Linux ext2, the sky is the limit).
My whole mp3 collection (my choice) is about 4GB, but what I regularly play goes in les the 750MB
(one CD size).
See, technically speaking, what is send comes from the SDcard, nor from RAM, never,
in RAM is only a small buffer.
So, here is a market opportunity, low power WAP SDcard DSL modems with web server build in.
If you make it and patent is HERE IS THE PRIOR ART, pay me.
;-)
