|
|
| Author |
Message |
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
 Posted: Jun 06, 2005 12:37pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
To the question of which IRC server software is the best for Windows, the answer is Conferenceroom.
|
No it's not .. the correct answer is the ircd that suits your needs best. "Best" is an opinion that can only be defined by the individual.
CR might work best for you .. unreal, bahamut, ircu and inspircd for others. Then even others like myself think that no windows based IRCd is good or even best because we feel that IRCd's belong on *nix and not windows, due to the limitations of windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
[DiMENSiON]
Eleet
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 621
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 3:29pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I Agree with katsklaw, it's down to personal choice, there is no overall best it's about what you prefer, some may prefer windows for overall easy of use if you are a n00b while others prefer *nix due to the stability and more flexibility, but in the end it's down to personal preference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 10:59pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: |
To the question of which IRC server software is the best for Windows, the answer is Conferenceroom.
|
No it's not .. the correct answer is the ircd that suits your needs best. "Best" is an opinion that can only be defined by the individual.
CR might work best for you .. unreal, bahamut, ircu and inspircd for others. Then even others like myself think that no windows based IRCd is good or even best because we feel that IRCd's belong on *nix and not windows, due to the limitations of windows. |
Conferenceroom Enterprise can hold 10, 000 users on Windows, and it's been tested. Can other IRCds do that? Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 11:26pm Post subject: |
|
|
Riiight. Like you're really going to want to hold 10,000 users on windows anyhow. First, Unreal can -- apparantly Syzop has been testing it in the past. Anyhow, let us look at the bad side of CR.
First, it has integrated services - a bad thing if the ircd dies, so do the services. It also has a crappy admin panel, bloated service manager, not to mention the amount of processes it starts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 11:27pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, there's also the fact that it costs a packet. So thanks, I'll stick with InspIRCd and Unreal. Or bahamut, ircu, ratbox, csircd... hell- even hybrid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2005 11:32pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Conferenceroom Enterprise can hold 10, 000 users on Windows, and it's been tested. Can other IRCds do that? Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin.
|
1. Who said I cared about putting 10k users on 1 ircd? I don't so it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.
2. That's your license limit, not a guarantee that you can get 10k users on your box (see #5).
3. I can name 5 *nix ircds that pass that 10k mark with flying colors. (all of them are free too, including the OS).
4. Not all nets WANT to have 10k users much less 10k on one ircd. Mine for example, I have no intentions of being a large network.
5. Not everyone has the same level of faith in winsock and win32 TCP/IP stacks as you.
6. I'd like to see you hold 10k users for more than 600 consecutive days.
So again .. it's personal preference. Just because 10k users in one win ircd is impressive to you doesn't mean it is to everyone.
If win32 CR is best for you.. great .. but it's not for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 2:25am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: |
Conferenceroom Enterprise can hold 10, 000 users on Windows, and it's been tested. Can other IRCds do that? Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin. |
| Unreal ./Config wrote: |
How many file descriptors (or sockets) can the IRCd use?
[1024] ->
|
.. limited by choice..we dont all have that kind of banwidth  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[DiMENSiON]
Eleet
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 621
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 3:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| hybrid? oo you're takin the piss there jokes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2064
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 5:56am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | Can other IRCds do that? Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin. |
I guess you did say most, I know for a fact that UnrealIRCd does NOT use cygwin, and from what I hear, InspIRCd is going down a different route to Win32 compatability.
| Anonymous wrote: | | Conferenceroom Enterprise can hold 10, 000 users on Windows, and it's been tested |
10,000 users... you must have more faith in Windows than Microsoft does. I have been using Windows since 1995 (When Windows '95 came out) and if anything, Windows is one OS that CANNOT take near enough of a beating as Linux can. In my 10 years as a Windows user (my own personal computer was recently converted to Linux, however I still have a Windows computer at home as well) I haven't seen one Windows version that has taken a beating and still remained standing and stable. Windows in itself is limited to 1024 concurrent connections in the TCP/IP stacks, how you managed to get 10,000 is a bit of a lie -- you would have to have direct access to the source code and have a level of programming sufficient enough to raise that number to anywhere near the number you quoted. By the way, what proof do you have (concrete proof, that is) that those numbers are legit? How can you be certain of them?
I for one would view quite a sensationalist number with great suspision |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 7:26am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | Anonymous wrote: |
Conferenceroom Enterprise can hold 10, 000 users on Windows, and it's been tested. Can other IRCds do that? Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin. |
| Unreal ./Config wrote: |
How many file descriptors (or sockets) can the IRCd use?
[1024] ->
|
.. limited by choice..we dont all have that kind of banwidth |
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. That's the default, you simply have to change MAXCONNECTS and recompile, and you'll be able to use more - PROVIDED that your OS and kernel support it. Many don't, so it's not set that high. (also so the nubcakes actually have to do something for themselves occasionally  ...)
"Most of them can't because they are compiled with cygwin"
That statement tells me you're posting as Guest, because again you simply don't know what you're talking about. Most IRCds don't even run on windows, because for one, until Windows 2003 (server) it had a very insecure implementation of TCP/IP and networking stacks. 2003 has gone some way to rememdy this, but it's taken how long? Then there's the fact that it still simply won't have the performance a unix server can. From what I know, floodtests have been done to get around 80,000 clients on say, a bahamut server. I'd like to see you do that with CR.
PingBad, Windows can take clients - just not old windows (although it's still not a great idea). Syzop said on the Unreal forums he'd done a clonetest (both windows and nix) a few times involving 10,000 users - nothing spectacular (although it would take quite a CPU/memory hit). To quote:
| Quote: |
Just for reference, I've done clonetests with 10K clients on both Linux and Windows (for some reason I always have a fight with freebsd, but just ignore that ;p), It isn't exactly going smoothly on lowspec machines (say, a p450 w/384M) -- it can especially require a lot of memory for (socket) buffers etc. And indeed, CPU becomes quite an issue, especially if you use spamfilter. Therefore it's usually better to spread it over several servers.
Speaking network-wise, Unreal has quite some insane limits ;p... max 255 servers, not really a global client limit (well, 2 billion users), channels are limited to 65535 users atm though ;p. |
[DiMENSiON]: I'd prefer to use Hybrid to CR, although it's a fine line .
So, what's your next point as to why CR r0x0r? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2064
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 7:40am Post subject: |
|
|
| w00t wrote: | | PingBad, Windows can take clients - just not old windows (although it's still not a great idea). |
Yes, I have run UnrealIRCd on a windows box. First time was on a Pentium 150 with 64MB of Memory running 98SE. Second time was on my current computer running XP Home SP1. For both setups, I loaded an EnergyMech bot (old version that still supported the -spawn command) and used spawn untl the boxes were starting to suffer quite horrific CPU and Memory lag. about 300 on my p150, and almost 1000 on my current PC (I upgraded XP to SP2 and also tested, made no difference whatsoever).
When I had an unfortunate sparring match (in which my system was knocked over, rendering WIndows useless) I upgraded to Fedora Core 3, installed UnrealIRCd, tracked down an old copy of EnergyMech (the more recent editions have the spawn command removed) and started flooding the IRCd. It took ~1200 bots to bring the box into a semi-responsive state. To further test system stabilities, I forced the bots on all setups to join one chan (the p150 took nearly 90 seconds to complete this, XP Home SP1 45 seconds, SP2 40 seconds, FC3 25 seconds). Then issued a link-wide command for all bots to message the channel with a random message. p150 took 120 seconds to show all messages, SP1 65 seconds and FC3 45 seconds.
My current setup is a Celeron 2.7GHz, 256MB DDR Memory and Fedora Core 3 (2.6.9-1.667). In my view, Windows is far from suited for any form of server environment (even the OS's possessing the word "server" in their name)
Just my 2 cents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 7:48am Post subject: |
|
|
You will tend to find that you get better results cloning from a different machine - what ended my clone testing in the end was the fact i was trying to run my scripts off the same machine - it ended up totally screwing things around .
That said, you do need to tweak things in Windows to get the best performance from sockets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radius
Lurker
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 9:11am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if you had to pay to use an ircd if all those opinions and boasts would change?
I personally believe irc clients should be free and the servers should be a paid app. then you wouldn't have so many small and kiddie run servers.
Now don't go all crazy on me ... it's just my opinion - and I would have no problems paying for the ircd -
cheers!
radius |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 9:50am Post subject: |
|
|
| radius wrote: |
I wonder if you had to pay to use an ircd if all those opinions and boasts would change?
|
Nearly all of CR's "features" are already available in free GPL ircds as it is which baffles me further as to why people actually pay thousands of dollars for it.
| radius wrote: | I personally believe irc clients should be free and the servers should be a paid app. then you wouldn't have so many small and kiddie run servers.
|
I'd rather it (ircds) remain free but be made extremely difficult for the average IRC newbie to configure and deny configuration/linking support. IMO we'd have less newbies right now if everyone removed all configuration support/docs except for a single file that explains what every line/block does. That way those that are moving to/from a services environment will at least know what is different about their new ircd. Example being those that don't know what a U:Line is.
Support for compilation is ok.  Yes, the admin-to-be should know a bit about *nix but being a guru isn't required to be a knowledgable IRC admin.
Charging for an ircd IMO would keep more experienced admins away that aren't interested in paying for it (bandwidth can be expensive enough) and the rich "kiddies" will still have servers. Also it seems like everything can be available via warez, so people will just run their ircd illegaly. So making it difficult to configure seems a bit better in weeding out the newbies since knowledge is what newbies lack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
braindigitalis
Idler
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 443
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2005 10:36am Post subject: |
|
|
all of the client limits you speak of are due only to unreal's use of the select() engine.
ConferenceRoom, having a win32-specific version, probably uses some other socket engine such as IO notification ports (the windows 'high performance' engine).
Most modern ircds (ratbox, bahamut, hybrid, ircu, inspircd, anything NOT based on dreamforge) don't use select, but will use the best the operating system has available, e.g. kqueue on freebsd, epoll on linux 2.6 kernels, /dev/poll on solaris... which not only allows them to hold more connections, but also allows them to deal with the connections more efficiently. For those of you who don't actually have any technical information relating to this and why select() is bad, i suggest you take a quick look here: http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
Some ircds used on large networks (e.g. csircd on efnet) DO use 'old' engines such as poll, however, ask any admin, and they will admit that the load averages for these boxes are in double figures constantly, and that modern approaches are far superior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
