Back at Rackspace? [Archive] - Web Hosting Talk

The Prohacker

10-15-2009, 11:23 AM

Cool. But I wonder, why don't WHT just stay at SoftLayer?

All of our servers have been at Rackspace; we only moved to SoftLayer to isolate WHT after the hack. SL could get the servers online quickly so I picked up the four servers from them. Once the compromised servers were rebuilt at RS and we were confident that WHT had been secured we took the steps to move the site back over to RS.

JFSG

10-15-2009, 11:32 AM

All of our servers have been at Rackspace; we only moved to SoftLayer to isolate WHT after the hack. SL could get the servers online quickly so I picked up the four servers from them. Once the compromised servers were rebuilt at RS and we were confident that WHT had been secured we took the steps to move the site back over to RS.So the servers are colocated at RS? It has been half a year since the WHT hack. It sure took quite some time...

The Prohacker

10-15-2009, 11:39 AM

So the servers are colocated at RS? It has been half a year since the WHT hack. It sure took quite some time...

We lease/rent servers from Rackspace. The move back to Rackspace happened a couple of weeks ago; things were running well at SoftLayer so I just wasn't in a great hurry to move things around once again. The additional cost of hosting off site wasn't terribly high so a quick move out and back in wasn't really necessary. Besides we had a lot of other irons in the fire at iNET so the priority wasn't moving back in.

Mike - Limestone

10-16-2009, 11:09 PM

We lease/rent servers from Rackspace. The move back to Rackspace happened a couple of weeks ago; things were running well at SoftLayer so I just wasn't in a great hurry to move things around once again. The additional cost of hosting off site wasn't terribly high so a quick move out and back in wasn't really necessary. Besides we had a lot of other irons in the fire at iNET so the priority wasn't moving back in.

Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker? :D

-mike

Jacob Wall

10-16-2009, 11:12 PM

Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker? :D

-mike

WHT never says that, but I am really curious also.

*subs*

10-16-2009, 11:49 PM

I'd bet it's less than you think. 80% gzip compression on this pageview ;)

Mike - Limestone

10-17-2009, 11:06 PM

I'd bet it's less than you think. 80% gzip compression on this pageview ;)

Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

-mike

Jacob Wall

10-17-2009, 11:17 PM

Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

-mike
http://webhostingtalk.com is gzipped
Original Size: 99.34 KB
Gzipped Size: 18.03 KB
Data Savings: 81.85%

That's pretty amazing, an 81.85% compression :O

The Prohacker

10-19-2009, 11:37 AM

Very cool information. Any hints about what Web Hosting Talk monthly bandwidth usage might be, Prohacker? :D

-mike

Well it's complicated to get a handle on exactly how much just WHT consumes per month since we have so much gear. But when we were on just SoftLayer the two front facing web servers used about 460GB of transfer a month each. Plus we are using a CDN for images and I would assume about 100GB there.

SC-Daniel

10-19-2009, 11:48 AM

Wow! That is quite interesting :)

I would have suspected more but with the high level of compression it just goes to show even the biggest sites don't need that much bandwidth! :)

Jacob Wall

10-19-2009, 02:32 PM

Well it's complicated to get a handle on exactly how much just WHT consumes per month since we have so much gear. But when we were on just SoftLayer the two front facing web servers used about 460GB of transfer a month each. Plus we are using a CDN for images and I would assume about 100GB there.

Wow that's amazing!

larwilliams

10-20-2009, 12:03 AM

Nice catch there. I had not realized that WHT utilized gzip compression, but it makes sense.

-mike

It is very smart of them to do so. gzip compression takes very little CPU time and can cut bandwidth bills considerably. We use it for our shared hosting servers and clients love it.

JFSG

10-20-2009, 03:06 AM

Wow! That is quite interesting :)

I would have suspected more but with the high level of compression it just goes to show even the biggest sites don't need that much bandwidth! :)In some other threads, many suspected WHT is consuming more than 10TB of bandwidth! :D

InfiniteTech

10-20-2009, 01:02 PM

In some other threads, many suspected WHT is consuming more than 10TB of bandwidth! :D
10 TB+ traffic for normal page view sites... Alexa ranking would be less than 500. WHT, the last time I checked was 28k~. Not a very big site... but WHT's traffic is very target oriented, hence all the activity.

The Prohacker

10-20-2009, 01:22 PM

10 TB+ traffic for normal page view sites... Alexa ranking would be less than 500. WHT, the last time I checked was 28k~. Not a very big site... but WHT's traffic is very target oriented, hence all the activity.

WHT's Alexa rank is 1,950 (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/webhostingtalk.com) :)

If you look at all of our sites we push around 4TB a month before moving several large sites to a CDN. I don't normally check our bandwidth usage so I haven't checked post migration.

BurakUeda

10-21-2009, 03:40 AM

Also WHT keeps the images at the minimum. i.e. no avatars, signature banners, images directly viewed at the post body etc. That should save quite a bit of BW.

Mike - Limestone

10-21-2009, 11:11 PM

Also WHT keeps the images at the minimum. i.e. no avatars, signature banners, images directly viewed at the post body etc. That should save quite a bit of BW.

You're right. The banner ads likely use a fair bit of bandwidth, but then again, those also surely bring in a lot of revenue to more than make up for it.

-mike