| |
Innapropriate use of technology |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #107774, posted by flibble at 10:12, 7/7/2008 |
Posts: 892
|
Very early stages of a 1U high, lego A7000 server.
http://home.marutan.net/~peter/subsite/photos/misc/newinsanity/
Not sure how good the EM radiation is from a a7000 PSU when you take the metal cover off the outside  But it was the only way it was getting to be under 1U in height. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #107776, posted by Phlamethrower at 12:10, 7/7/2008, in reply to message #107774 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Not sure how good the EM radiation is from a a7000 PSU when you take the metal cover off the outside But it was the only way it was getting to be under 1U in height. What about encasing it in those conductive LEGO plates? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #107781, posted by flibble at 14:00, 7/7/2008, in reply to message #107776 |
Posts: 892
|
What about encasing it in those conductive LEGO plates? Nice plan might bankrupt myself getting them though, they're a bit pricey. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108254, posted by flibble at 10:58, 2/9/2008, in reply to message #107781 |
Posts: 892
|
http://home.marutan.net/~peter/subsite/photos/misc/rackmount/
New photos, nearly done. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #108292, posted by Loris at 11:45, 4/9/2008, in reply to message #107781 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
Looking good.
Regarding EM emmisions - how much free space have you got?
You could put sandwich tinfoil between two layers of bricks...
Or you could glue the foil to the inside after construction, then coat with paint.
(If you do either of these, it might help to scrunch and unscrunch the foil first rather than using it pristine.)
[Edited by Loris at 12:47, 4/9/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108295, posted by flibble at 13:33, 4/9/2008, in reply to message #108292 |
Posts: 892
|
Looking good.
Regarding EM emmisions - how much free space have you got?
Hmm, after briefly thinking about it I've honestly not worried to much about the em emissions
You're tin foil idea might well work of the sides, but space on the top and bottom is rather limited. What's the normal way to measure emissions?
I've gotten a bit further on software, benchmarked a couple of HTTP servers.
WebJames - 3.8h hits/sec
InetD/micro_httpd - 2.1 hits/sec (Unreleased)
There is a speed up to be have to running from and serving from RAM disc. micro_httpd is up to 3.6 hits/sec, and I've not tried webjames yet.
This doesn't really compare to the 2000 hits/sec I'm getting from the machine with apache on that the A7000 is currently sat on |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108296, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:42, 4/9/2008, in reply to message #108295 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
What about h11p? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108297, posted by flibble at 13:51, 4/9/2008, in reply to message #108296 |
Posts: 892
|
What about h11p? It *is* on my list of things to benchmark 
Deltanet, Stuart Brodie's BASIC one, and posisbly the one in Netplex are also on the list |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108302, posted by Phlamethrower at 00:42, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108297 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
I got bored so now I've written a 1K web browser to go with it. However it isn't very usable (HTTP 0.9, only performs special processing for A/BR/DIV/P tags, and links are all printed inline - you have to type the new URL in manually). Plus some sites (e.g. TIB) just return a 403 error instead of the page I want 
And it doesn't even work with h11p because h11p won't parse URIs that start with http://.../
[Edited by Phlamethrower at 01:43, 5/9/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #108303, posted by rich at 13:37, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108302 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Plus some sites (e.g. TIB) just return a 403 error instead of the page I want There's code to ban some users from the entire server, which targets vulnerability scanners, but I doubt that's what you're getting as you'd get a 403 on the error page as well. There shouldn't be anything to block regular pages, but there is to prevent image stealing, which might be where you're getting problems. Check the .htaccess file for further info on that.
Or it could just be that you're not requesting HTTP/1.x and the server's telling you to f'off
Can't you just change the headers to ask for HTTP/1.0? I mean, there's writing something 100% accurate, and there's writing a 1K browser to do something that's actually useful!
# telnet www.iconbar.com 80
Trying 194.93.128.70...
Connected to www.iconbar.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0
HOST: www.iconbar.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:35:51 GMT
[...]
Content-Type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>The Icon Bar: Technology News and Resources</title>
[...]
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #108304, posted by rich at 13:44, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108303 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Actually, I just telnet'd in using 0.9:
GET / HTTP/0.9
HOST: www.iconbar.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
[...]
<title>The Icon Bar: Technology News and Resources</title>
[...]
...although I wasn't sure it'd take notice of the HOST header. But then, it's replying in 1.1.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108305, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:46, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108303 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Can't you just change the headers to ask for HTTP/1.0? Not if I want it to fit in 1K!  Currently it's 1020 bytes, so there's no space to add a HTTP version number.
Of course it is completely useless as a 1K browser, so the long-term goal is to make some ultra-small (4K? 8K?) HTTP 1.0 browser that at least attempts to do some formatting and clickable-linking of pages. And then port it to the BBC since it's written in BASIC (but it will be a bit useles until someone hurries up and writes a TCP/IP stack) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108306, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:48, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108304 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Actually, I just telnet'd in using 0.9:
GET / HTTP/0.9
HOST: www.iconbar.com As I understand it (or as my browser implements it) HTTP 0.9 is just a single line request of 'GET http://www.iconbar.com/' (Although the protocol & domain are optional parts of the request)
[Edited by Phlamethrower at 14:49, 5/9/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #108307, posted by rich at 13:52, 5/9/2008, in reply to message #108306 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Actually, I just telnet'd in using 0.9:
GET / HTTP/0.9
HOST: www.iconbar.com As I understand it (or as my browser implements it) HTTP 0.9 is just a single line request of 'GET http://www.iconbar.com/' (Although the protocol & domain are optional parts of the request)
Well that would be your problem - I just tried that and got the 403 error. And I tried it without the protocol and got a 400 error.
And without either, you'd just get the default virtual server, as you don't have a HOST header (which I *thought* that was a 1.x addition).
Just re-write your code to be a 1.1KB browser 
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108534, posted by flibble at 13:47, 14/10/2008, in reply to message #107774 |
Posts: 892
|
It fits!
http://www.home.marutan.net/~peter/subsite/photos/misc/rackmount/ |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108536, posted by Phlamethrower at 14:29, 14/10/2008, in reply to message #108534 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Hurrah!
Any benchmark results yet? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108537, posted by flibble at 15:14, 14/10/2008, in reply to message #108536 |
Posts: 892
|
I've a lot of benchmarking data, which I want to write up more formally, but to give you the result I think you're most interested in. The fastest was WebJames, but your h11p was within 10% of the speed, which is great
[Edited by flibble at 16:15, 14/10/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Michael Drake |
Message #108849, posted by tlsa at 20:26, 24/11/2008, in reply to message #108537 |
Posts: 1097
|
http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2347
h11p is pretty cool, although I miss having directories automatically serve up the index page.
I found WebJames a bit unstable. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108850, posted by Phlamethrower at 20:43, 24/11/2008, in reply to message #108849 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
http://www.drobe.co.uk/article.php?id=2347
h11p is pretty cool, although I miss having directories automatically serve up the index page. Well, bug me enough and I might write h22p for a 2K web server (Or however many K is required to be acceptably useful)
Also flibble, a 13 year old PC should really have been used as a comparison machine, not a 4 year old one. It's like you wanted RISC OS to lose! Cuh! |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108858, posted by flibble at 14:23, 25/11/2008, in reply to message #108850 |
Posts: 892
|
It's like you wanted RISC OS to lose! Cuh! Can you think of a way in which RISC OS could win? I'd hoped that the with power/performance trade off of the A7000 (which I own) that it might be worth replacing the 4 year old PC (which I use currently), but it isn't.
I still think there might be a place for a ARM board with a very low power requirement and a X00 MHz processor and sensible network bandwidth to actually fill a web server role. I just don't have one to test
I could throw money at either a PC or ARM solution and get an increase in performance, but for now I'll stick to what I have. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108859, posted by Phlamethrower at 14:59, 25/11/2008, in reply to message #108858 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
It's like you wanted RISC OS to lose! Cuh! Can you think of a way in which RISC OS could win?
How much load is the server under? Unless you actually need it to deliver a sustained throughput of over 200k/sec then you're throwing money away by using the PC instead of the A7000 because of the difference in power consumption.
That's a very realistic way in which RISC OS could win. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #108862, posted by flibble at 16:01, 25/11/2008, in reply to message #108859 |
Posts: 892
|
How much load is the server under? Unless you actually need it to deliver a sustained throughput of over 200k/sec then you're throwing money away by using the PC instead of the A7000 because of the difference in power consumption. Erm, did you read the conclusions on the article, where I suggest virtually hosting a small site with busier sites to negate extra power costs? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #108863, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:13, 25/11/2008, in reply to message #108862 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
How much load is the server under? Unless you actually need it to deliver a sustained throughput of over 200k/sec then you're throwing money away by using the PC instead of the A7000 because of the difference in power consumption. Erm, did you read the conclusions on the article, where I suggest virtually hosting a small site with busier sites to negate extra power costs?
No, I didn't 
But if you're only running the one (or two) low-traffic website(s) then RISC OS would be the better option (at least as far as power consumption is concerned).
*makes note to add virtual host support for h22p* |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #109677, posted by Phlamethrower at 22:14, 30/3/2009, in reply to message #108863 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
More thread hijacking about my 1K web browser/insane BBC micro web browser thingy.
At one point I did actually have a go at writing a layout engine for converting HTML to teletext (hint: I gave up before doing much). And I certainly don't have any hardware available to develop and test a BBC micro ethernet adaptor. But it looks like there may be a suitably tiny TCP/IP stack available for use! http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/lwip/
[Edited by Phlamethrower at 23:14, 30/3/2009] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #109687, posted by andrew at 19:15, 31/3/2009, in reply to message #109677 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Why do you need an ethernet adaptor? Can't you use an emulator? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #109688, posted by Phlamethrower at 19:31, 31/3/2009, in reply to message #109687 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Why do you need an ethernet adaptor? Because it's a much better way of connecting to the internet than via a modem.
Can't you use an emulator? I probably could if I was using a modem (or some dubious TCP over Econet system). But since BBC Ethernet adaptors don't exist (AFAIK!) it would be much better to start off with real hardware and work from there.
(Of course all of this is still hypothetical since I doubt I'd ever have the time or will to follow through with such a silly idea) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #109728, posted by andrew at 11:05, 4/4/2009, in reply to message #109688 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
I mean just write the HTML parser (or whatever the terminology) in an emulator then worry about the TCP later? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #109729, posted by Loris at 13:43, 4/4/2009, in reply to message #109677 |
Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
At one point I did actually have a go at writing a layout engine for converting HTML to teletext Umm...
Can't you get away with scanning the string, discarding the header plus everything within angle-brackets? Except detecting links, which you can colour blue if you like. If you want to really push the boat out, display alt tags for text. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Tribbeck |
Message #109730, posted by tribbles at 16:50, 4/4/2009, in reply to message #109729 |
 Captain Helix
Posts: 929
|
Somewhere I've got a table layout engine for plain-text rendering.
Although it is very complicated (it copes with nested tables, and even draws borders using "+", "-" and "|"), and written in C... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #109731, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:53, 4/4/2009, in reply to message #109728 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
I mean just write the HTML parser (or whatever the terminology) in an emulator then worry about the TCP later? Yes, that's I was planning on doing. Although I probably wouldn't bother with an emulator to start with so I don't have to worry about memory/etc. constraints.
Umm...
Can't you get away with scanning the string, discarding the header plus everything within angle-brackets? Except detecting links, which you can colour blue if you like. I've got code to do that already. Something more impressive would be nice - text colours, alignment, etc. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
