Heater wrote:Jim, You are right, we see so many unrealistic expectations of the Pi here. From raw CPU performance to network bandwidth.
However I'm guessing the Pi might be able to hold 20000 open TCP/IP connections. It might need some careful configuration. There are limits on these things imposed by the kernel that can be tweaked. Sorry I forget what they are called. Certainly a lot more than dozens or hundreds is possible.
Are your friends in the "top one-percenter community" living up the tallest tree in Borneo? Round here the worst, slowest, cheapest domestic internet connections I have seen for five years or more are 10Mb/s down and 20 or more up (Yes, outgoing faster than incoming) Free with the rent or maybe 10 Euro a month. Even deep in the forest we can get better than your figures using a 3G connection.
Hey Heater - I think we're talking apples and rocks. The number of _simultaneous_ HTTP/HTTPS connections that a _web_server_ can typically accommodate is much smaller than the number of TCP/IP connections that the underlying system can manage, which is more a function of RAM, CPU horsepower (word size, clock speed, instruction set architecture, number of cores, etc.), system bus capacities, network interface goodput, competing processes, etc. The OP seems to be asking about lots of fairly small, static pages that each only requires a very short connection and then it's on to serving the next browser request, and if that's the case, then the early answers attempt to determine the number of pages per unit time that can be supported. Again, the number of simultaneous connections is a function of how complex the pages being served are, and whether the connections are stateless (which used to be the norm) or stateful, highly-interactive pages with lots of high-bandwidth content sources.
Europe is much more densely populated than most of the U.S. People outside the U.S. (and even those inside who live in metro areas) tend to not comprehend just how spread out we are, with Guam on the West side of the International Dateline ("Where America's Day Begins" is their territorial motto), Alaska being a good chunk of Europe in size, Hawaii is farther from the Best Coast than San Francisco is from New York City, and the continent is over 3,000 miles wide in longitude and around 2,000 miles tall in latitude. Only half of the U.S. population lives in/near metro areas, and the other half are in far-flung places that the LEast and Best Coasties call the "Flyover States" because they never set foot in them, which is a big shame and is helping feed the divisive politics of today. Those Flyover States and even the rural areas on the coasts are always the last to get telecomm upgrades because the cost is so much higher due to the very large distances needed to reach each business, let alone residence, everywhere. We have hundreds of thousands of Last Miles to connect and in order to do it at high speed, that means fiber, but even with all that's been laid, that's mostly been long-distance trunks and the low-hanging fruit in the metro areas, where wiring one building with thousands of users is very cheap per user.
However, wiring a single remote residence on a ranch in Wyoming can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there's not nearly enough satellite bandwidth to service all of those kinds of customers at reasonable bit rates and cost, other than in receive-only broadcast mode, and my friends only have the option for satellite TV. They are retired and so high-speed Internet access isn't a big thing for them as they've never had it and wouldn't know what to do with it even if they did, plus their kids are grown and in/through college out-of-state. The typical comparison of South Korea as having the fastest Internet access per capita is a red herring because something like 95% of the population lives in one of four huge metro areas, one of which is one of the top three most populated metro areas in the world, depending on what day you count and what's been built, and the entire country is only a bit larger than New York State.
The same is true for whichever Scandinavian country boasts how much better their high-speed coverage is than the U.S., etc. Ironically, when I first got to Silicon Valley, it was one of the last areas to get digital PCS, 3G, 4G, and then 4G LTE cell service, and fiber-based broadband Internet because it was early into analog infrastructure investments, and it all had to be first augmented and then replaced at great cost in an urban and dense suburban environment. South Korea and Scandinavia never had such investments made that early on and have tiny areas to cover to reach nearly everyone not tending reindeer for a living (and I suspect even the reindeer have better 4G LTE coverage than I do right now!