Site for hosting files on - FREE!

[bart]

Ok,

I was bored over christmas break, and made a website for people to host files on, images, documents, anything, very nice user interface, and best of all this is all free.

TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS!! >> www.servfiles.com

direct linking is allowed.

also, i'd like input on it, whats good, whats bad

thanks

-bart

EDIT so for the post below, the link would be:

www.servfiles.com/14/

http://www.servfiles.com/14/

[/////AMG]

Awesome site man!! uploads are so fast.

Testing

http://www.servfiles.com/download.php?id=14

[bart]

the thing is, vbulletin does not allow dynamic strings in image urls, its on be default, unless the admin turns that option off, they wont post direct on any vbulletin board. they work on zeroforum example, or any regular website.

this way you'll have to click the link.

[rage2]

bart, if you're using apache, you can use the ForceType directive to allow the user to use, say... :

http://www.servfiles.com/download/14

and allow the server to see it as the proper download with the proper ID query string.

We disable dynamic strings in image urls to prevent people from uploading pics here for their personal sigs.

[bart]

hey,

ya i was thinking about modrewrite, and make virtual directories and stuff like that, but havent gotten around to it.

server is apache now, something cheap, but i plan to later upgrade to win2003 and iis6, which i developed the site on originally.

[rage2]

I use asp_rewrite extensively at work for IIS. When you decide to upgrade... heh

[Khyron]

Upgrade from Apache to IIS....Ok. :nut:

Khyron

[JAYMEZ]

Can we download MP3s on to ur site?

[googe]

Originally posted by bart
hey,

ya i was thinking about modrewrite, and make virtual directories and stuff like that, but havent gotten around to it.

server is apache now, something cheap, but i plan to later upgrade to win2003 and iis6, which i developed the site on originally.

so you mean downgrade, then?

[rage2]

Originally posted by Khyron
Upgrade from Apache to IIS....Ok. :nut:

Originally posted by googe
so you mean downgrade, then?
haha you guys need to work in the real world :). IIS5 is wicked, fast, efficient, works awesome.

Beyond runs on IIS, all the servers run Windows 2000, and it's the best performing car forum I can think of. I can't remember the last time I've seen any form of lag.

[Khyron]

I am in the real world, and while I am not an OS nazi (I use MS for work stations, internal exchange server, etc) it is a known fact that MS web servers are just not up to snuff. Aside from the 10x more exploits, the servers are also just not as stable. Most in house java apps that I've come across (call center contact managers etc) use tomcat (apache variant) instead of IIS, even on a windows 2000 machine. Ask any Telus hosting IT guy which farms crash more - the apache ones or the IIS ones.

Apache runs faster, with less hardware overhead. Beyond runs quick sure, but look at the hardware you are running. Put apache with a stripped down linux distro, and you can run 10 beyonds (I would suspect your DB is the bottleneck regardless). I bet my little athlon 1600 with 512 megs would run beyond just as lagless (with your DB server tho. :D)

Khyron

[roopi]

Originally posted by Khyron
I am in the real world, and while I am not an OS nazi (I use MS for work stations, internal exchange server, etc) it is a known fact that MS web servers are just not up to snuff. Aside from the 10x more exploits, the servers are also just not as stable. Most in house java apps that I've come across (call center contact managers etc) use tomcat (apache variant) instead of IIS, even on a windows 2000 machine. Ask any Telus hosting IT guy which farms crash more - the apache ones or the IIS ones.

Apache runs faster, with less hardware overhead. Beyond runs quick sure, but look at the hardware you are running. Put apache with a stripped down linux distro, and you can run 10 beyonds (I would suspect your DB is the bottleneck regardless). I bet my little athlon 1600 with 512 megs would run beyond just as lagless (with your DB server tho. :D)

Khyron


We tried to convince our boss to move the DB to a Linux box but instead he ordered a 3 boxes and a server rack from Dell for $20,000 so we can upgrade to 2003. It'll work but... just more money for hardware and more money on us optimizing

[rage2]

Originally posted by Khyron
Aside from the 10x more exploits, the servers are also just not as stable.
You're making it sound like apache and linux doesn't suffer from exploits. I'd say the number of exploits are pretty close between the 2. All software will have a vulnerability because coders suck.

Originally posted by Khyron
Most in house java apps that I've come across (call center contact managers etc) use tomcat (apache variant) instead of IIS
Java, there's your problem :nut: :)

I don't use Java, because the overhead is horrible. Lazy wannabe programmers use Java. Real programmers use PHP/ASP.net and other more efficient means of web programming. Elite programmers write their own archetecture.

Originally posted by Khyron
Ask any Telus hosting IT guy which farms crash more - the apache ones or the IIS ones.
haha Telus. Ask the owners of 780tuners how telus's sweet as server nearly nuked their entire site :).

Originally posted by Khyron
Apache runs faster, with less hardware overhead.
True to a degree. That's because MS has GUI overhead. But who cares, hardware is frickin' CHEAP nowadays. You're gonna tell me that you're gonna save $300 to get 1/2 the performance, and keep using obsolete hardware? We upgrade are hardware because old hardware is tough to get replacement parts for. $900 is what is costs for a brand new server for us. Hardware overhead is irrelevant nowadays. But yes, apache/linux has less overhead, but it's such a miniscule difference.


Originally posted by Khyron
Put apache with a stripped down linux distro, and you can run 10 beyonds (I would suspect your DB is the bottleneck regardless). I bet my little athlon 1600 with 512 megs would run beyond just as lagless (with your DB server tho. :D)
hehe try that with about 8 forums and 200 sites :). That P4 doesn't JUST run beyond :).

[rage2]

Oh, one final note. We did run beyond on a Linux box for a while. I had a separate test DB server and did testing on both a Slackware w/MySQL vs Windows 2000 with MySQL on the exact same box. Performance was identical. Pulled large querys to test while people were online, virtually ZERO difference in performance.

The advantage of linux is that a lot of mySQL tools don't have w32 versions.

[kenny]

I think the only major failure we had since beyond has been up was a hardware based failure. One of our harddisks decided to puke on us but because our servers run in a RAID-1 mirror configuration most users probably didn't even notice. When one of our drives failed, the other drives in the RAID setup continued to operate and run the site until our replacement drive was ready to be installed. Total downtime for this was roughly 3 minutes and another minute later the servers and all the processes were started up again and the server was back up and running.

This occured on December 15th at 1:00PM.

As a side note, doesn't linux have something similar to Windows Update now?

[rage2]

Redhat has a windows update style updater. It was free, it's a pay service now. Costs are as much, maybe more than cost of Windows 2000 Server :).

[Khyron]

Originally posted by rage2
You're making it sound like apache and linux doesn't suffer from exploits. I'd say the number of exploits are pretty close between the 2. All software will have a vulnerability because coders suck.


Ok you can't seriously say that with a straight face. Red5, nimda, ALL the bad ones were IIS. Sure, apache might have some obscure hole that given local access you can escalate to root, and I believe there was one that messed around with the SSL side of things - but it certainly doesn't let a simple request turn into a complete compromise.


Originally posted by rage2 [B]
Java, there's your problem :nut: :)

I don't use Java, because the overhead is horrible. Lazy wannabe programmers use Java. Real programmers use PHP/ASP.net and other more efficient means of web programming. Elite programmers write their own archetecture.


For small projects, yes. But for larger projects the overhead is required to keep code streams clean among multiple teams. Personally I'm a perl goon - but I know coding Expedia.ca in Perl would be unthinkable. PHP is better on a linux platform, and ASP - well, I don't know of a single reason to use ASP unless you happen to have a great programmer who loves it. I'm just starting to have to deal with Websphere, which so far sounds unbelievably convoluted...


Originally posted by rage2 [B]
haha Telus. Ask the owners of 780tuners how telus's sweet as server nearly nuked their entire site :).


Sure, disasters can happen, and any company that large is bound to have a few idiots in the shed. But overall their scale is the best way to judge reliability and performance. When I was a junior admin at Cadvision, the IIS machines were an absolute nightmare, while the linux boxes could run for months with no intervention. Granted, IIS has evolved since then.


Originally posted by rage2 [B]
True to a degree. That's because MS has GUI overhead. But who cares, hardware is frickin' CHEAP nowadays. You're gonna tell me that you're gonna save $300 to get 1/2 the performance, and keep using obsolete hardware? We upgrade are hardware because old hardware is tough to get replacement parts for. $900 is what is costs for a brand new server for us. Hardware overhead is irrelevant nowadays. But yes, apache/linux has less overhead, but it's such a miniscule difference.


On a linear comparison sure, but when you start really getting traffic, memory usage and CPU can go up exponentially - which is where the IIS machines drop dead. And if the thing locks up you often have to be onsite to bounce it - almost unheard of with linux. However this isn't a linux vs windows thing - I'd still put apache on a Windows machine before using IIS. Out of the top 50 websites in the world, the majority are running Apache (with Netscape Enterprise a surprising second).


Originally posted by rage2 [B]
hehe try that with about 8 forums and 200 sites :). That P4 doesn't JUST run beyond :).

You work for Myrias?

BTW: This is all academic - I believe that an expert IIS guru will run a better site on IIS than he will on something he doesn't know well. Use what you know. :D

Khyron

[Khyron]

Originally posted by kenny
I think the only major failure we had since beyond has been up was a hardware based failure. One of our harddisks decided to puke on us but because our servers run in a RAID-1 mirror configuration most users probably didn't even notice. When one of our drives failed, the other drives in the RAID setup continued to operate and run the site until our replacement drive was ready to be installed. Total downtime for this was roughly 3 minutes and another minute later the servers and all the processes were started up again and the server was back up and running.


Interesting you'd take the performance hit for Raid 1, and not blow the extra few bucks for 1 more drive for a Raid 5 setup? Course hardware can die no matter what os/crap you are running. I still don't really trust hot-swappable disks.


Originally posted by kenny [B]
As a side note, doesn't linux have something similar to Windows Update now?

Redhat does (they are going to enterprise only, no more home use). It's free as long as you fill a dumb survey every now and then. But for most server users it's not needed. Ie - I just watch for SSH and Apache updates - everything else doesn't really apply unless it's your desktop machine (Xwindows, IE, etc).

For small time web server people, using an older PC with linux and apache is free and pretty bulletproof. An old P2 will make an excellent web server - save the new dual p4s for your desktop gaming rigs! :bigpimp:

Edit: Flashback from 2000: Microsoft Hotmail service was powered by Apache. This week it was discovered that the Microsoft Networks' homepage service at http://homepages.msn.com/ is running Apache version 1.3.6 on Unix. :eek:

Khyron

[bart]

Originally posted by JAYMEZ_STi
Can we download MP3s on to ur site?

you can have mp3 files, but they cant be copyright, as stated in my TOS. this is so i dont get in trouble.

[googe]

Originally posted by rage2

You're making it sound like apache and linux doesn't suffer from exploits. I'd say the number of exploits are pretty close between the 2. All software will have a vulnerability because coders suck.


Count the apache exploits vs the IIS ones :) Significant apache bugs are few and far between, there has been at least 1 exploit for every minor version of IIS (and usually more than 1, but always at least 1), and I expect this to continue through 7,8,9,etc :)

The big problem here is that Microsoft doesnt understand the concept of allowing minimal access to perform the tasks required. The security context of the web server actually has MORE privileges than the administrative user by default. What is up with that? Hell, The winpopup messenger service runs with more privileges than the administrator! It should be able to do nothing!

Besides that, the significant issues with apache were incredibly obscure, and successful exploitation was far from trivial. These IIS bugs that are flying out left and right are not all that obscure, and given the source code, they would stick out like a sore thumb. I can only imagine what would be found if people didnt have to black-box test it to find anything but the obvious.

I have plenty of experience in "the real world" with both of these. I see no advantage to using Windows/IIS servers other than simplicity. They are an incredibly fertile breeding ground for internet worms and have single handedly impacted global communications on several occasions with their garbage.

end rant :D

[bart]

Originally posted by rage2


Java, there's your problem :nut: :)



YES! I hate java with-a-passion. Stupid U of C is sponsored by SUN, guess what language they make us do stuff in? OMG.

Funny thing, it was invented right here in Calgary.

[googe]

Originally posted by rage2
Redhat has a windows update style updater. It was free, it's a pay service now. Costs are as much, maybe more than cost of Windows 2000 Server :).

up2date still works for free.

Besides that, there are dozens of quality linux distributions.

Besides that, there is freebsd, which is superior and will always be free ;)

[bart]

i like to think the following:

the more expensive it is, the better it must be. ;)

[speedracer]

Pretty cool Bart!

Before anything I actually like the Unix environment. I'm frustrated more so with click click click click click just to find an executable or to find out I didn't put a check mark in a obsure area....


Originally posted by googe

so you mean downgrade, then?

Apache under windows environment is very limited.


Originally posted by Khyron
I am in the real world, and while I am not an OS nazi (I use MS for work stations, internal exchange server, etc) it is a known fact that MS web servers are just not up to snuff.


This can be said for Linux as well (you can't say that threading or multi processors "owns" anyone) . Real Operating systems are not emulated.


Originally posted by Khyron
Apache runs faster, with less hardware overhead. Beyond runs quick sure, but look at the hardware you are running.

This depends on many factors as well. Apache is great for some calls whereas IIS is great for others.


Originally posted by Khyron
Put apache with a stripped down linux distro, and you can run 10 beyonds (I would suspect your DB is the bottleneck regardless). I bet my little athlon 1600 with 512 megs would run beyond just as lagless (with your DB server tho. :D)


That doesn't make sense. IF the DB is the bottle neck then how would it be any faster under a "optimzed" OS using the same DB artchiture.... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by rage2

Elite programmers write their own archetecture.

:rofl: That's why I'm just a user... heh


Originally posted by bart
[B]
Stupid U of C is sponsored by SUN, guess what language they make us do stuff in? OMG.

NO, that would be an incorrect assumption. We only wish that was true with SUN support.

We all hate M$ for it's software practices but not everything they have is evil (well, even that's a stretch ;)).

Eg:
Gentoo: ~3-4 hours
2000 Server: ~4 hour (damn patches)
Solaris 9 (as close as it gets to a real OS IMO ): 4 days
AIX: don't ask :(

So which would you perfer to setup?

[googe]

Originally posted by speedracer
Apache under windows environment is very limited.

Hes not running windows.


Originally posted by speedracer
This can be said for Linux as well (you can't say that threading or multi processors "owns" anyone) . Real Operating systems are not emulated.


What are you talking about? None of the aforementioned operating systems are emulated.


Originally posted by speedracer
This depends on many factors as well. Apache is great for some calls whereas IIS is great for others.

:bullshit:


Originally posted by speedracer
We all hate M$ for it's software practices but not everything they have is evil


Yes it is :D


Originally posted by speedracer
Eg:
Gentoo: ~3-4 hours
2000 Server: ~4 hour (damn patches)
Solaris 9 (as close as it gets to a real OS IMO ): 4 days
AIX: don't ask :(

So which would you perfer to setup?

These numbers are totally arbitrary. For one, Gentoo is compiled from scratch, so the time is spent waiting for it to compile, and of course depends entirely on the system specs. Gentoo is also not a reflection of linux, as the other end of the scale, Mandrake, takes no time to install at all. Anyway, what does the time you have to invest to initially get it running have to do with the quality of the operating system?

And may I ask why Solaris is superior? (surely you mean on sparc, not x86)

Hooray for OS wars :clap:

[SwitchBlade]

Yo man awesome sight its quick and easy to use, nice work :thumbsup:

[rage2]

Man, too much to read, too much to quote. Lemme summarize :).

Any OS has vulnerabilities. It's up to the *good* administrators to have a protocol for setting up their systems which minimize or eliminate the risks of a potential vulnerability. My servers were NOT affected by any of those big worms that were spreading. It's because I don't use the default setup :). Microsoft realized this for Windows 2003, which is why IIS6 comes pretty much locked down so it's nearly useless (no CGI support, etc) out of the box.

I've used a lot of apache back in the day, and a lot of Linux as well (I'm a slackware gimp). Not to mention FreeBSD when I ran a Dalnet server. I used to be all hardcore gung ho on using command line interfaces, I believed it got the job done. OK, sure there are a few things that are faster command line, which is why I pop up CMD.EXE in Windows quite often, but you know what... a GUI interface makes things 1000x more productive. 1000x more intuitive.

googe blamed Microsoft servers as a fertile breeding ground for internet worms and have single handedly impacted global communications on several occasions with their garbage. Well I blame dumb admins. Imagine if there was no Microsoft, or no Microsoft dominance. Imagine if any linux distro was the dominating server OS. Now imagine those dumb users running their "base installs". We'll have so many rooted boxes, DDOS farms, hacked pages, you name it.


Originally posted by Khyron
On a linear comparison sure, but when you start really getting traffic, memory usage and CPU can go up exponentially - which is where the IIS machines drop dead. And if the thing locks up you often have to be onsite to bounce it - almost unheard of with linux.
Why would you stretch your hardware out so much anyways to even get anywhere near those limits? Why do we aim for a 30% utiliation on our servers before upgrading? It doesn't matter what OS/webserver/platform you're running on. Fact is if you run more then 40% utilization, service performance will suffer during spikes. A good admin should account for these spikes. 10 years ago, I'd be watching out for hardware ($$$). Today, I'd just buy a new server. Seriously, if you can't afford $700 for a no name brand RAID1 server when you need one, you shouldn't be in business :).

Now lets say you were stretching hardware to the max. You do NOT need to go onsite to reset the box, common misconception by "PCAnywhere admins". Even if it's 100% CPU, running out of memory, swapping, etc. you can access everything (including reboots) with remote tools. Of course, PCAnywhere would be useless, but there are hundreds of tools available to you can, from another machine, perform pretty much all administration.


Originally posted by Khyron
Interesting you'd take the performance hit for Raid 1, and not blow the extra few bucks for 1 more drive for a Raid 5 setup?
RAID1, if using proper hardware and setup properly, can yield nearly double the read speeds. Write speeds does take a hit though, but lucky for us, databases do 97% reads and 3% writes.


Originally posted by speedracer
2000 Server: ~4 hour (damn patches)
4 hours??? Rookie. Sysprep baby, I can roll out a win2k web server, completely secured and patched in under 45 mins. Based on a master I put together over 8 months ago :).

[googe]

Mr Bart:

Warning: mysql_connect(): Host 'localhost.localdomain' is blocked because of many connection errors. Unblock with 'mysqladmin flush-hosts' in /home/virtual/site122/fst/var/www/html/srvrdb.php on line 10

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/virtual/site122/fst/var/www/html/srvrdb.php on line 12

Keeps saying that.

[bart]

OK!

I redesigned the site a little, and its now beyond friendly!!!

everything is pretty straight forward, if you got questions, post them here, i will be making a detailed tour/tutorial for the really 'dumb' in a few days, i had enough work for today. lol

i will be switching to a dedicated server in about 1-2 weeks, because its gotten a little bigger since.

enjoy.

[Team_Mclaren]

thx bart!

new sign!:love: :love: :thumbsup:

[Skyline_Addict]

not alot of space, but it's free and it's better than nothing. good for storing pics!

thanks!

[bart]

what do you mean not a lot of space?