Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Charlotte/Matthews, NC
    Posts
    7

    Question PowWeb and large mysql databases?

    Does anyone have any experience with running large mysql databases on PowWeb?

  2. #2
    It would be heplful if you could define "large".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Charlotte/Matthews, NC
    Posts
    7
    300MB and growing.
    30-40GB/mo bandwidth and growing.


    i just called. they cannot handle it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,994
    Originally posted by adambrooks
    300MB and growing.
    30-40GB/mo bandwidth and growing.


    i just called. they cannot handle it.
    300Mb for a MySQL database isn't large, however for most shared hosts it would be... well actually they are probably more worried about 40Gb a month.

    With those levels of stats you're probably best off looking the dedicated end of the market, I know it's more expensive but there comes a point in the level of a sites popularity that you have to bite the bullet.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    632
    Well, it depends on what sort of content is in that database, and how it's used/accessed. I'm assuming this is a forum? What sort of software are you using to run it? Is that software scalable or are you running yourself into a dedicated setup much faster than you need to?

    It all really depends on your usage of the database, not necessarily it's size. I host a number of databases of that size or larger, but most of the content of those databases isn't accessed frequently, so it's of no consequence to have it in there. That's the point of indexes in a database too: To make a lot of data searchable *really* quickly.
    Former owner of A Small Orange
    New owner of <COMING SOON>

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Charlotte/Matthews, NC
    Posts
    7
    well, i think you hit the nail on the head. it's active. the size is a consideration, but i think that the amount of activity is what is really sparkign the problems.

    Originally posted by timdorr
    Well, it depends on what sort of content is in that database, and how it's used/accessed. I'm assuming this is a forum? What sort of software are you using to run it? Is that software scalable or are you running yourself into a dedicated setup much faster than you need to?

    It all really depends on your usage of the database, not necessarily it's size. I host a number of databases of that size or larger, but most of the content of those databases isn't accessed frequently, so it's of no consequence to have it in there. That's the point of indexes in a database too: To make a lot of data searchable *really* quickly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    3,407
    Originally posted by adambrooks
    300MB and growing.
    30-40GB/mo bandwidth and growing.


    i just called. they cannot handle it.
    40 GBs of traffic per month on a host that allows 5 GBs/day? Surely they wouldn't offer something with no intent of meeting their advertised allowance. Afterall 5 X 30 is $150 GBs.

    I guess the 5 Gbs/day is for anyone who will not use it. For those who will use it, you are not offered it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Just to quote you UmBillyCord:

    I will say "The hell with it" and offer unlimited everything!
    Resource "abuse" is a problem for any host. A website could bring a server to a halt using under 50GB of data transfer per month. It all depends on what kind of processing is done. Try rendering images "on the fly" and you'll bog down most servers easily with just a few users.

    Leaving that aside, that 5GB/day offer at that price is worrying to say the least (if you're thinking at the overselling factor that must be involved).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    3,407
    Originally posted by ldcdc
    Just to quote you UmBillyCord:



    Resource "abuse" is a problem for any host. A website could bring a server to a halt using under 50GB of data transfer per month. It all depends on what kind of processing is done. Try rendering images "on the fly" and you'll bog down most servers easily with just a few users.

    Leaving that aside, that 5GB/day offer at that price is worrying to say the least (if you're thinking at the overselling factor that must be involved).
    Trust me, I am well aware of resource use and how servers operate.

    The point is that more and more host are offering things that can not be meet in the first place. Once you cross that line, there is no difference between offering unlimited and a limit no one will ever be allowed in the first place. Like saying "All you can eat cookies per person per seating" or "Eat up to 5000 cookies per person per seating." What is the difference? Both are no longer limits.

    Powweb markets 5 GBs/day. I bet not a single person of the thousands they host are allowed that. "Resource abuse" will introduce itself as the limit. Not some grossly overstated limit they have no intent of honoring. Give it some time, that will increase to 10 Gbs/day once their competitors in the grossly overselling arena increase their ~limits~. AOL got tired of the game in the Internet world. Companies kept raising hours. AOL went to unlimited hours.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Trust me, I am well aware of resource use and how servers operate.
    I trust you and I'm sure you know 100 times more than I do about this matter. I was just trying to add a bit more to your otherwise excellent post. I hope I did not offend you but if I did, please accept my apologies.

    I love this part of your last post. You told it so well:

    The point is that more and more host are offering things that can not be meet in the first place. Once you cross that line, there is no difference between offering unlimited and a limit no one will ever be allowed in the first place. Like saying "All you can eat cookies per person per seating" or "Eat up to 5000 cookies per person per seating." What is the difference? Both are no longer limits.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    465
    get a VPS, a dedicated would be a waste for now, you don't need that much of resources yet

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    632
    Originally posted by mp3sattack
    get a VPS, a dedicated would be a waste for now, you don't need that much of resources yet
    A VPS would be a waste. Unless you have specific needs that require the reconfiguration of the server software, a VPS is extra and unneeded overhead. I'm a bit tired of the opinion that it goes shared > VPS > dedicated in terms of needs for a site. A VPS is a waste for hosting just a website. So a simple shared environment will work for his site, as long as he's not going with a host that overcrowds their servers and doesn't understand that sites need room to grow. Eventually, the next step would be a dedicated server, but not a VPS.

    Adam, finding a host that doesn't overcrowd may be the hardest part of finding your next host. Many people offer the amount of space/bandwidth you need, without the resources to back that up. I'm personally all about filling up a server to 75-80% and then moving to the next server. Check with your host and see how many users they're putting on their servers normally. Anything over 50-75 is a dead ringer for an overselling host.
    Former owner of A Small Orange
    New owner of <COMING SOON>

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Many people offer the amount of space/bandwidth you need, without the resources to back that up.
    AFAIK there is no set value for the resources/bandwidth ratio. So every host will assume an average such ratio. Sure, as Umbillycord noted, there are ratios that are simply not sustainable as they are wrongly assumed. On the other hand, as I said earlier (with other words), a server can be overloaded with only one very resource-hungry website that uses little amounts of bandwidth.

    I'm a bit tired of the opinion that it goes shared > VPS > dedicated in terms of needs for a site. A VPS is a waste for hosting just a website.
    As it's been said, some websites have high requirements in terms of resources. Would anyone host a website that uses almost all the resources of a box for let's say $30-40/month? I doubt it, even if the website is using only 30-40Gb/month transfer. Some websites are simply not suited for shared hosting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •