a proxy testing idea with Linux and Wine

[kingrat]

it can be hard to check proxies for many reasons.

so anyone can obtain a VPS for a few dollars a month and run popular programs such as Charon or proxyfire under Wine in Linux for the following reasons:

1.Linux VPS are much cheaper as there is no windows license to deal with.plus you do not have to pay for as much CPU/RAM to get a functioning graphical desktop.
2.programs are no longer hindered by strange TCP phenomena endemic to the windows OS.
3.datacenter bandwith should be fast and "synchronous" so the upload and download speed is exactly the same.
4.you no longer would have to deal with the risks of connecting to unknown machines with your personal computer/IP in order to test them.
5.mostly programs run better under Linux/wine.

of course an individual would need a basic understanding of Linux and SSH usage otherwise it is not difficult

 

[proxygo]

it can be hard to check proxies for many reasons.

how so ? take your proxies - run them through bleech on 400 connections
throw the working ones in charon and test, doesnt take long at all

 

[dracony2]

mostly programs run better under Linux/wine.

I strongly disagreethat running windows apps under wine works better than using windows. Wine uses much more CPU to emulate windows libraries. You could use mono for running .net apps though.

programs are no longer hindered by strange TCP phenomena endemic to the windows OS.

windows has a socket limit. so does linux. On vps your maximum socket limit is usally around 128 or smth like that

Also VPS usually give you just an ssh connection, so you won't be able to run apps that have a gui.
Also, linux VPS are also cheaper because they give you less resources. Linux vps can run on just 256 MB ram. To get a VPS where you would be able to run wine apps efficiently you'd need a bit more than that.

For the same price, i would just buy a proxy list at awmproxy.com . They have huge working semiprivate proxies, which all work great with google for smth like 60$ a month. I used them for a lot of time, and i really see no need in proxy scraping anymore. Btw, they also give you a free test

 

[kingrat]

how so ? take your proxies - run them through bleech on 400 connections throw the working ones in charon and test, doesnt take long at all

if you have a mediocre wireless connection like me then yes it is hard.with a VPS you can login and start programs that will keep running no matter what.

windows has a socket limit. so does linux. On vps your maximum socket limit is usally around 128 or smth like that

if you have some OpenVZ based piece of junk then maybe.but this is not the case for VMWare,KVM or XEN based servers. they can open 50000 sockets or more.BSDs can do even more.

Also VPS usually give you just an ssh connection, so you won't be able to run apps that have a gui.

both freenx and xming allow you to run graphical programs from remote.

Also, linux VPS are also cheaper because they give you less resources. Linux vps can run on just 256 MB ram. To get a VPS where you would be able to run wine apps efficiently you'd need a bit more than that.

i can run both charon and proxyfire with a XEN based 256MB linux server.it only costs me 3 dollar a month

For the same price, i would just buy a proxy list at awmproxy.com . They have huge working semiprivate proxies, which all work great with google for smth like 60$ a month. I used them for a lot of time, and i really see no need in proxy scraping anymore. Btw, they also give you a free test

this is correct.awmproxy is quality.

 

[seoreports]

wine was a horrible experience when I tried using it a few years ago. I just use a windows vps.

 

[dracony2]

they can open 50000 sockets or more.BSDs can do even more.

Server admins set a hard kernel limit to make sure this won't happen. They do this because a usual VPS website will never get 128 concurrent connections and they don't really need all kinds of smart guys running stuff on their systems. I have a hostgator vps for my account, the limit is 128, writing to support achieves nothing, it is not there by accident, it was their intention. My friends have vpses on other providers and all of them reported similar limits (well there was one that had a 256 limit). It doesnt depend that much if they use OpenVZ or anything else, they set the limit themselves. At one point it was actually a big concern for me, that's why im sure about this. Anyway, i really don't think you'd need more than 128 concurrent connections, its good enough for proxy checking.

Btw, i think you are forgetting the bandwidth cost, i don't know how much bandwidth those 3$ VPSes allow you to use, but i think that 128 cincurrent connections downloading proxy lists and test pages and google (to check if proxies are google friendly) will eat a lot over the limit.

Anyway, if you ever do try this, report back to the thread, i think it might be an interesting read.
If it were me, i'd just code the proxy checked to run in linux console. Coding a proxy scraper and checker isnt much work.

 

[kingrat]

I have a hostgator vps for my account, the limit is 128, writing to support achieves nothing, it is not there by accident, it was their intention. My friends have vpses on other providers and all of them reported similar limits (well there was one that had a 256 limit). It doesnt depend that much if they use OpenVZ or anything else, they set the limit themselves.

hostgator VPS are not so good.OpenVZ has something called "numtcpsock" plus many other limits.quality virtualizors like XEN,KVM,VMWare or BSDjails do not have all these strange limits.

Anyway, if you ever do try this, report back to the thread, i think it might be an interesting read.

i already do this for a long time.

 

[dracony2]

Oh, i thought it was just an idea currently.
The limits are not strange btw, deafult rather. I run arch linux on my netbook, just checked, 256 max connections. I can change the limit on my netbook though, but those are the defaults =)

 

[proxygo]

windows has no socket limit if you use a pc with
xp+sp1 = no socket limit , and i have a pc set up
just for that.. for port scanning proxies on 4k
connections.. done that for 6 yrs

 

[sirgold]

"mostly programs run better under Linux/wine" I stopped here LAWL LAWL... There are a BUNCH of games that run at a higher framerate and that basically stops right there. It works so much better that reactos (based on wine, merging and shit) has been in development for years and it's still alpha. Wine has reached the first semi-stable (whatever it means) version 1.0 very recently. For instance you can try .net 4.0 to see how good wine works.. Mono you said, unfortunately -when the code works- most winforms will make the gecko bindings crash (try to port a .net bot, I did it for years..) and the benchmarks on phoronix prove it's twice as slow in most cases, but then I'd digress... I've been developing on linux since a few years after Linus released the first version of the kernel and still consider WINE (that's not much younger than the kernel...) an EXCEPTIONAL work of reverse engineering, but with A FEW practical uses.. It might be a good replacement in certain areas, that's where the crossover guys stepped in with a commercially supported version. Still office, for instance, stutters pretty often just to name something... Anybody saying the contrary is really a fanboi...

 

[sirgold]

Plus, I'll be the last guy vouching for that crap windows is, but removing the semi-open TCP connection limit is just a matter of downloading tcp-z and setting a higher number, even on post SP1 machines...

 

[carnage_100101]

Plus, I'll be the last guy vouching for that crap windows is, but removing the semi-open TCP connection limit is just a matter of downloading tcp-z and setting a higher number, even on post SP1 machines...

I couldnt agree with you more,OP should do his homework

 

[proxygo]

the tcp block witch was as i recall introduced as a sp2 measure
the patch doesnt open all tcp..only a %
thats why i bought an old duel core machine with xp/sp1
no limit tcp - scans like a charm . no need for patches fixes

 

[kingrat]

I couldnt agree with you more,OP should do his homework

some of you are missing the critical main point of this post which is to create a cheap fast system for testing proxies.this is not about game framerate or things that have nothing to do with proxies.

 

[NIXMY]

I just wonder where you need wine/windows tool for this purpose when there is a total solution available for linux CLI. Why use an old windows such as WinXP? Win7 does not have this limit (at least I can do 300 connections per second) without any issue using win7 ultimate.

 

[portalweb]

Linux/Unix has the advantages over Windows when it comes to testing the proxies.

You can run up to 265,000 connections, tweaked via sysctl.conf settings.

 

[proxygo]

(at least I can do 300 connections per second) without any issue using win7 ultimate.

i run 3500 on xp/sp1 - works for me. aint broke / wont fix it

 

[NIXMY]

Linux/Unix has the advantages over Windows when it comes to testing the proxies.

You can run up to 265,000 connections, tweaked via sysctl.conf settings.

You're not limited to this amount on linux, it can be tweaked to a lot bigger amount but the point is, we don't have a software that could reliably handle this many connections in one instance.

(at least I can do 300 connections per second) without any issue using win7 ultimate.

i run 3500 on xp/sp1 - works for me. aint broke / wont fix it

You're missing the point there. The OP suggested to use wine/windows softwares on linux for a better performance. It was not about who can run most on which setup.

If I would be looking to use windows for this purpose, it would be nothing but windows 2008 r2 server on a good connection in a data center. If you're here to prove something, try what I suggested and you'll be surprised with the results/reliability versus your current setup, no offense of course. If you're happy with your current setup/results, don't fix a working system.

PS. If we are going to do something like 250k connections per second in terms of port scanning, there is no way a home connection could handle it reliably unless it's a good fiber thus it's totally a different story how the network admin will look at it. It will more or less look like DDoS attack or something nasty like that. You're going to need a specific host as well if you're looking to do this on large scale.

When the network admin will take a look at the router CPU usage, and he will see your server IP doing say 250k/second. Prepare to have a good answer as well.

I've tried various budget VPS hostings and even a 500 connections per second made some hosting suspend my VPS because 'it was under a attack due to too many connections'. Needless to say, this was another clueless hosting but as I said, a different story.

 

[kingrat]

If I would be looking to use windows for this purpose, it would be nothing but windows 2008 r2 server on a good connection in a data center.

you must also take price into consideration.
i do not think you will find a windows VPS for 3 dollars a month.
certainly not with server 2008.
many times the VPS place will not even offer windows.
you will mostly get centos,debian or ubuntu for cheap VPS.
linux plus wine works even with the hostgator 1 penny VPS offer.
it is not the best but for 1 penny it is a good deal.

 

[portalweb]

You're not limited to this amount on linux, it can be tweaked to a lot bigger amount but the point is, we don't have a software that could reliably handle this many connections in one instance.

I provided my own powerful custom servers with various O/Ses installed, rack-mounted in my own full rack cabinets at various data centers here in USA, which I provide for my own services and my private customers for many years. I know from my experience when dealing with high-end customers that they prefer high-end powerful dedicated servers to allow them to run their SEO tools on it.

VPS is good for anyone who can't afford high-end servers. As for Linux/Wine, dedicated server is best - as you don't have to worry about the restrictions imposed by the VPS providers.