Author Topic: Maximum Connections (Read 15881 times)

vashon · « **on:** September 22, 2008, 02:21:06 pm »

Hi,
Using the search I've found various references to the maximum number of chat connections from a single IP. However I'm after a fairly definitive answer to this as I'm thinking of making bot hosting services availiable to other orgs.
I have access to and currently run 3 bebots on a dedicated linux server for 24/7 connectivity. If anyone knows the answer to this I would be very happy!

vashon

Alreadythere · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2008, 09:44:04 pm »

I run into troube at something around 20 bots on 5 accounts. Can't remember the exact numbers.

Heffalomp · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2008, 10:35:37 pm »

it is somewhere around 20 connections/IP, usualy stops around 18-20/ip here, haven't counted it properly, but not that hard to do a test on that =)

vashon · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2008, 12:07:15 am »

Thanks Alreadythere and jokskar.. I'll set my limit at 15 to play it safe.

Hyde · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:58:45 am »

I'm on a Linux host which is plenty beefy ... if it wasn't for the max connections from a single IP I could easily double my number of bots (we have 3 orgbots, 1 org relay, 2 raid bots, now 4 slaves ... and host another 5-6 for PVP bots ... but would like to add more raid bots and possibly others).

If I can get my host to bind another IP address to my server, does anyone know if there is a way to force PHP or the bot code to connect through the 2nd IP?

If it were inbound connections it would be easy to do via multiple host names, but since it is outbound I don't know what the mechanism (if any) would be.

It would be a lot cheaper and alot EASIER than paying for and managing a 2nd host. I know I can consolidate the MySQL servers on a single host, but that really isn't the bigger management hassle.

Hyde · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2009, 02:12:38 am »

Well, the person who maintains the account for us says that the ISP doesn't offer a 2nd IP option (they offer failover but not 2 permanently assigned static IPs). However they might in the future so that would still be an interesting possibility.

My other option would be:
step 1) get a very cheap (like $5/10 month) web host on a provider with a good pipe and running Linux with SSH

step 2) set up a 2nd account on the current bot server that connects to the web host via SSH

step 3) tunnel that 2nd account over SSH and port forward to FC

Since database and http queries would remain on the main server we would only be proxying the actual chat between the host and FC, which is relatively low bandwidth.

(We pay alot more than that for the level of service we get on the main server so it would still save alot).

Any holes in that idea?

Pharexys · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2009, 11:42:30 pm »

Hyde, just buy a VPS like i did for Elitenet now, You can buy additional ips for 1/2 bucks per month, so aint that much imo

You have access to anything since they give you "root", I pay even less then AO account on this one, and i got 20g space and 2 ips

I just run bots on it, so i dont need anything else

Hyde · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2009, 01:28:18 am »

Quote from: Pharexys on January 23, 2009, 11:42:30 pm

Hyde, just buy a VPS like i did for Elitenet now, You can buy additional ips for 1/2 bucks per month, so aint that much imo
You have access to anything since they give you "root", I pay even less then AO account on this one, and i got 20g space and 2 ips
I just run bots on it, so i dont need anything else

That would work if we didn't have bots that Chris wants to have 99% uptime on. We run Clanside1 off this server as well as an orgbot that has to handle some huge traffic. And we're planning some very serious additions to both Clanside1 and similar services.

And with instanced APF and soon instanced Pande, plus the other fields, we're planning some public raidbots that will likely double the load. All things that having to deal with the hassles of a SLA on a VPS make it so that a VPS isn't good enough for all the stuff we're running/planning. It is good enough to proxy some traffic though, which is basically what I was talking about.

I agree that the dedicated server we have should be able to have multiple IPs but ... they don't agree

Pharexys · « **Reply #8 on:** January 24, 2009, 02:16:25 am »

to complicated imo, well try to stick to 18-19, or ask if you want, i could host 1-2 bots if you really cant and they are needed.

Hyde · « **Reply #9 on:** January 24, 2009, 02:17:40 am »

Quote from: Pharexys on January 24, 2009, 02:16:25 am

to complicated imo, well try to stick to 18-19, or ask if you want, i could host 1-2 bots if you really cant and they are needed.

What is complicated about setting up a SSH tunnel? Its easy as pie, I'm just not sure if it will work and was wondering if someone tried it. I'll likely test it soon if no answer.

Alreadythere · « **Reply #10 on:** January 24, 2009, 09:18:29 pm »

I haven't looked into the actual code, but the socket stuff used seemed very similar to posix socket(). Following that logic I think it should be possible to bind to a specific IP if wished. Not sure how much if any coding that would require, but shouldn't be hard IMO.