|
Home > Archive > IIS FTP Server > October 2004 > Windows 2003 Server limitation
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Windows 2003 Server limitation
|
|
| Serverdude 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| Our ftp servers are hit heavily by the our user community. When we used IIS
4 (NT4) and IIS5 (Windows 2000), we ran into the limitation of 100 current
connections on these servers. We only learned of this after seeing failures
then troubleshot and consulted for many weeks with going up the chain in
Microsoft technical support. We faced 2 issues when the limit is: 1) The
100 concurrent connection is the limit!
2) Instead of rejecting user connection, these FTP servers simply just
dropped the data without any kind of notification!
Our network engineers had to pull some Unix magic to capture the data 7x24
and still do, so that we can capture all data to ensure nothing is lost
whenever IIS FTP reached its limit. We faced rath from all sides
(management, customers, bruised professional pride, etc.) because of this.
Does anyone know if these (1 and 2 above BOTH) are still problems with the
IIS that comes with Windows 2003 server (IIS6). There are still legacy
advantages for us to use windows FTP, but it's getting hard to justify when
the linux ftp servers didn't even break a sweat in a similar environment at
our company. There is a heavy push here by several groups to go to Linux.
We need to make a decision by mid next week.
Thanks
| |
| Bernard 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| Wow. I haven't heard about the 1).
for 2) I have seen some previous posting, but there are just too many
posibilities. e.g. connection, client software and etc.
as for IIS 6.0, I have no idea. just wait for the 'F' guy in the IIS to give
us the answer 
--
Regards,
Bernard Cheah
http://www.tryiis.com/
http://support.microsoft.com/
http://www.msmvps.com/bernard/
"Serverdude" <Serverdude@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E63C6C35-906C-4EDA-99D0-2467B8141372@microsoft.com...
> Our ftp servers are hit heavily by the our user community. When we used
IIS
> 4 (NT4) and IIS5 (Windows 2000), we ran into the limitation of 100 current
> connections on these servers. We only learned of this after seeing
failures
> then troubleshot and consulted for many weeks with going up the chain in
> Microsoft technical support. We faced 2 issues when the limit is: 1) The
> 100 concurrent connection is the limit!
> 2) Instead of rejecting user connection, these FTP servers simply just
> dropped the data without any kind of notification!
>
> Our network engineers had to pull some Unix magic to capture the data 7x24
> and still do, so that we can capture all data to ensure nothing is lost
> whenever IIS FTP reached its limit. We faced rath from all sides
> (management, customers, bruised professional pride, etc.) because of this.
>
> Does anyone know if these (1 and 2 above BOTH) are still problems with
the
> IIS that comes with Windows 2003 server (IIS6). There are still legacy
> advantages for us to use windows FTP, but it's getting hard to justify
when
> the linux ftp servers didn't even break a sweat in a similar environment
at
> our company. There is a heavy push here by several groups to go to Linux.
> We need to make a decision by mid next week.
>
> Thanks
>
| |
| Serverdude 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| Regarding 2, we've gone above and beyond normal and have proven that it is
IIS's FTP, not network connections, not client that dropped data. We've
analyzed ftp packets, 3 ways TCP hand shake between servers and clients, and
know who did what. MS tech support did not dispute our findings.
"Bernard" wrote:
> Wow. I haven't heard about the 1).
> for 2) I have seen some previous posting, but there are just too many
> posibilities. e.g. connection, client software and etc.
>
> as for IIS 6.0, I have no idea. just wait for the 'F' guy in the IIS to give
> us the answer
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bernard Cheah
> http://www.tryiis.com/
> http://support.microsoft.com/
> http://www.msmvps.com/bernard/
>
>
>
> "Serverdude" <Serverdude@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E63C6C35-906C-4EDA-99D0-2467B8141372@microsoft.com...
> IIS
> failures
> the
> when
> at
>
>
>
| |
| Alun Jones [MSFT] 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| "Bernard" <qbernard@hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
news:upX0MA3pEHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Wow. I haven't heard about the 1).
> for 2) I have seen some previous posting, but there are just too many
> posibilities. e.g. connection, client software and etc.
>
> as for IIS 6.0, I have no idea. just wait for the 'F' guy in the IIS to
give
> us the answer
As that 'F' guy, I should note that the default setting in an IIS 6
installation for maximum number of connections is already higher than that.
The hard-coded default (what happens when that metabase key is missing) is
considerably higher. The setting can be changed from the main "FTP Site"
tab of the properties for the FTP server.
I would be very interested to see what Serverdude's experience of IIS 6 FTP
will be when he installs it and tries it out for a little while. Set the
maximum number of connections low, and see if the behaviour is what you
remember, or more to your liking, then set it high and stress it.
It sounds from the original poster's comments as though the people he's
dealing with in his company will accept nothing less than a demonstration
from the OP. The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the eating.
Alun.
~~~~
| |
| Serverdude 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| Thanks Alun for your reply. You seemed to have address my concern 1. What
about 2? I will cut and paste your response to pass it on, so any insights
is much appreciated. Problem 2 is the biggest beef they have with IIS 6 here.
Thanks,
"Alun Jones [MSFT]" wrote:
> "Bernard" <qbernard@hotmail.com.discuss> wrote in message
> news:upX0MA3pEHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> give
>
> As that 'F' guy, I should note that the default setting in an IIS 6
> installation for maximum number of connections is already higher than that.
> The hard-coded default (what happens when that metabase key is missing) is
> considerably higher. The setting can be changed from the main "FTP Site"
> tab of the properties for the FTP server.
>
> I would be very interested to see what Serverdude's experience of IIS 6 FTP
> will be when he installs it and tries it out for a little while. Set the
> maximum number of connections low, and see if the behaviour is what you
> remember, or more to your liking, then set it high and stress it.
>
> It sounds from the original poster's comments as though the people he's
> dealing with in his company will accept nothing less than a demonstration
> from the OP. The proof of the pudding is, after all, in the eating.
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~
>
>
>
| |
| Alun Jones [MSFT] 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| "Serverdude" <Serverdude@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ECE8661F-B2F3-4950-A116-4BC814CA7863@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Alun for your reply. You seemed to have address my concern 1.
What
> about 2? I will cut and paste your response to pass it on, so any
insights
> is much appreciated. Problem 2 is the biggest beef they have with IIS 6
here.
I don't have any information to go on to find what your original problem
was, but if you have a test method that you were using, that would be great.
Alternatively, you could try it for yourself.
Alun.
~~~~
| |
| Bernard 2004-10-02, 9:07 pm |
| Hmm.. I would suggest you post your finding here
and I'm sure Alun will figure something out.
--
Regards,
Bernard Cheah
http://www.tryiis.com/
http://support.microsoft.com/
http://www.msmvps.com/bernard/
"Serverdude" <Serverdude@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9BCACF70-1029-4FAB-A067-5B8D32EDA17F@microsoft.com...
> Regarding 2, we've gone above and beyond normal and have proven that it is
> IIS's FTP, not network connections, not client that dropped data. We've
> analyzed ftp packets, 3 ways TCP hand shake between servers and clients,
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> know who did what. MS tech support did not dispute our findings.
>
>
> "Bernard" wrote:
>
give[vbcol=seagreen]
used[vbcol=seagreen]
current[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
7x24[vbcol=seagreen]
lost[vbcol=seagreen]
this.[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
legacy[vbcol=seagreen]
environment[vbcol=seagreen]
Linux.[vbcol=seagreen]
|
|
|
|
|