[buug] Bandwidth restriction in Apache

[johan beisser]

On Dec 30, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Wm. F. Honeycutt wrote:
> I think the client will balk at "marginalizing" end-user  
> experience.  They opted for this very "busy" look and feel knowing  
> full well that it would require a lot of resources.  That being  
> said, this is their first statement with big numbers.  The rubber  
> finally meets the road.

Both good and bad, but how were they planning on paying their costs?

> Johan, we have a WebMux, currently balancing incoming traffic only.   
> Inbound and outbound traffic go through Cisco ASA, also.

Since there's a balancer in the scheme, see if it can do BW shaping  
based on link usage, then further restrict until you can renegotiate  
with the hosting provider.

>  look in to using either OpenBSD pair with PF/CARP or a used F5.
>
> This is a hosted environment, so that degree of customization isn't  
> practical, unfortunately.

Hosted how?

> Very doable.  They can afford it, but in these times everyone is  
> trying to look like a super-manager.

There are costs to do business. if they're unwilling to pay for it,  
they may have to figure out how to screw the customer experience. It's  
been a short learning curve for many new companies, and the audience  
is fickle at best.

> Ah, s3 is an interesting idea.  That would be quite straight forward  
> to migrate, though we might face some throughput issues which  
> wouldn't be controlable using the cloud.

Don't have to. Just figure out the cost per month. S3 is just a  
storage mechanism, you still pay for the BW but the rates are likely  
better than any facility or provider can give you.

Sometimes not, though. Scaling is hard. This is just a single hiccup,  
just wait until the really nasty stuff shows up.