Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 51
  1. #1

    Please recommend a host for my vbulletin forum

    Hi,

    I will be launching an online community based on a vbulletin board and am currently searching for a suitable host.

    I don't have the time to deal with changing hosts frequently, I would rather focus on growing my community, that's why choosing the right host is important.

    A few details :

    - my hosting budget is 20-30$ per month, and I will be purchasing for about 6 months in advance

    - it will probably grow at a fast rate, that's why 100 concurrent users during peak hours wouldn't surprise me after about 3-5 months. I need a host that won't kick me out when I start to have 50-100 or more concurrent users.

    - I am looking for a fast server time and great support (if you suggest a VPS, then it must be a managed one, since I don't have the time or expertise to deal with setting up servers)

    Please suggest a host you would consider suitable for my needs, preferrably based on personal experience.

    Thank you in advance

  2. #2
    I think with this budget you will find what you need easly
    ArzNet.com
    Providing Hosting & Domain Reseller since 2001
    Clientexec and Directi Domain Reseller with every Reseller Plan - 30 Day Trial Now Available!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    for 100 concurrent users you should start looking for a VPS at least. +50 concurrent forums users shouldn't be hosted on a shared enviroment.
    for a VPS, I suggest you to take a look to data393.com or liquidweb.com

    Regards
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,265
    50-100 concurrent connections in very few, you should be fine on a shared web hosting package. VPS should be somthing to wait on till the future where you find that you really need it. Suggestively start out with a shared package and go from there, most companys will move you from a shared to vps for free, when you upgrade with them.

    I would suggest my comment as a company to consider.

  5. #5
    I agree with DeadEnd, shared will be ok to start with for the number of visitors you mention. Just make sure your provider doesn't allow more than 50% overloading of CPU.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    Ok, I guess that you two disagree with most of the people at vbulletin too then
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,265
    Well, I only post from my experience of running my own business and my work with servers. I have been working with servers for close to 8 years, and hosting web sites, game servers, voice servers, and dedicated servers for close to a year now.

    I would be ashamed if my shared hosting wasn't able to handle 50-100 concurrent connections.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    Opinions clearly differ, but I know that I would not risk a treasured forum with 50+ online users, by putting it in a regular shared hosting environment.

    That being said, gievn your situation, I would start with shared hosting, and upgrade later.

    - I am looking for a fast server time and great support (if you suggest a VPS, then it must be a managed one, since I don't have the time or expertise to deal with setting up servers)
    $20-30 are unlikely to cover that.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by ldcdc

    $20-30 are unlikely to cover that.
    20-30$ would be the preferred budget, however, if necessary, I could raise the amount (a poster has recommended the liquidweb vps, at 60/100$ monthly, I could raise my budget to 60$ monthly if the price is justified by quality).

    So far, liquidweb is one of my options.

    I have also noticed another vps host, powervps.com, with seemingly positive reviews, input regarding this host would be appreciated.

    Pair.com also seems to be appreciated. Do you think this host could cover my needs and not cause negative surprises, like being kicked out for high CPU usage?

    Which one of the three mentioned above would you consider the best choice?

    If you have other suggestions for my 20-30$ preferred budget(that could be raised, if necessary, but, nonetheless, needs to stay under 100$ monthly), please share.

    Thank you again for your help

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,265
    If you are planning to spend anywhere near $100 you might as well just think about getting an entire dedicated server. Like i suggested before, buy just a shared hosting plan and then upgrade as needed.

    I don't know anyone who would rather spend more money up front, if they could save it and get the same service till you need somthing like vps or a dedicated box.

    That of course is your decision, but I know most of my clients would rather save money then spend it.

  11. #11
    hi,

    I would totally agree about trying to save money, but as I am in the same boat as the original poster, I think we would just rather have things set up in the first place so that we don't have to worry down the road. And I definitely don't know much about managing servers and such so I would really want the easiest solution possible over the cheapest.

    Knowing that vbulletin is a resource hog is really the big thing. I hate going on forums where there are errors and lags, which may lead to loss of users. So personally, I think I am starting with a vps or dedicated server just so I won't have to deal with some of these issues that many vbulletin owners present.

    Good Luck, and hopefully we'll both have our sites up soon!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    308
    Even a $60 VPS will not do all that well handling 50+ concurrent users, nevermind 100+ (which you said you expected to grow to). If you can get it to work, it would certainly require quite a bit of optimization / tweakage. Many VPS hosts do not use SCSI disks either, which is not ideal for maximum MySQL performance.

    What I can recommend to you is to get in touch with www.medialayer.com. They are an excellent hosting company well versed in the application hosting market - and it is that which they specialize in. Most other shared hosting companies are stuck on old, low-performance versions of HTTP Daemons (e.g. Apache 1.3.x), whereas MediaLayer is already using 2.2.x. The same for their MySQL, already on 5.x.

    I've been doing extensive testing on MediaLayer's environment, and not once have I had a performance issue. The server load is constantly below 1 on their servers, many times even 0.10. Previously I was on a sub domain, but just recently I started hosting my domain with them - http://www.consolidationcounseling.com/ - performance is truly great.

    I don't think it is right to classify MediaLayer as a shared host, they are truly an application hosting company, unlike others. Another example of an application host is CartikaHosting.com (haven't used them but have heard good things). An application host is what you need .

    I hope this helps and best of luck with your site. :-)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,265
    I have to agree with Redcoat on his post. The thing to understand between VPS and Shared hosting is, there isnt much of a difference.

    Lets put it this way, we have a cluster of servers that handles our shared hosting packages. The servers in our cluster run Dual Xeon 2.8Ghz and 15,000Rpm SCSI drives. Now understanding there are many people pulling from that one server, but still you get excellent performance.

    VPS hosting usually runs similar to this. The company will take a Celeron, Pentium 4 or somthing of that nature with a gig or two of ram running in IDE or Sata if your lucky. Then they split that up into 6 or maybe 10 peices then sell it as vps.
    Now vps has alot of advantages, such as shell access or remote desktop, dedicated ip. So you can install new software or what not.

    VPS dosent mean you get more power or performance, just means you get more access to the server. So, if your only going to host a web site or forums there is very little reason to ever have a VPS. Basically for that you will need either shared hosting or if you run out of resources there, then you need to move onto a dedicated box. Because for the most part you recieve about the same Cpu and Ram, etc. on the shared hosting as you would on most VPS packages.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadEnd
    If you are planning to spend anywhere near $100 you might as well just think about getting an entire dedicated server. Like i suggested before, buy just a shared hosting plan and then upgrade as needed.

    I don't know anyone who would rather spend more money up front, if they could save it and get the same service till you need somthing like vps or a dedicated box.

    That of course is your decision, but I know most of my clients would rather save money then spend it.
    Of course, sites like dreamhost, which promise 1TB monthly transfer for pocket change would be the easiest sollution, but, from what I have heard, they will boot you as soon as your active userbase grows, even hosts with better "reputation", from what I have read, like hostgator, will ask you to leave if you have more than 25 active connections at a time, since it uses up too much of the server's resources.

    As the previous poster stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by boozecrooze
    hi,

    I would totally agree about trying to save money, but as I am in the same boat as the original poster, I think we would just rather have things set up in the first place so that we don't have to worry down the road. And I definitely don't know much about managing servers and such so I would really want the easiest solution possible over the cheapest.

    Knowing that vbulletin is a resource hog is really the big thing. I hate going on forums where there are errors and lags, which may lead to loss of users. So personally, I think I am starting with a vps or dedicated server just so I won't have to deal with some of these issues that many vbulletin owners present.

    Good Luck, and hopefully we'll both have our sites up soon!
    This is my main concern, and why I am prepared to dig a little deeper in my pockets if necessary:

    I have a budget for my project, that will include hosting costs, script customisation, and online advertising campaigns.

    Having a great interface helps, and advertising brings visitors to your site, but you have to turn those visitors into active members, and, quite frankly, I, the visitor/potential member will not join a forum that loads slowly/has lots of errors.

    If my site does not perform well in terms of loading speed, then the advertising+script customisation will prove useless.

    Saving money is fine, in my view, as long as you don't have to make compromises as to your user experience/loading time.

    VPS dosent mean you get more power or performance, just means you get more access to the server. So, if your only going to host a web site or forums there is very little reason to ever have a VPS. Basically for that you will need either shared hosting or if you run out of resources there, then you need to move onto a dedicated box. Because for the most part you recieve about the same Cpu and Ram, etc. on the shared hosting as you would on most VPS packages.
    My main concers is that a shared host will kick me out once I use up too many resources, and constantly searching for webhosts is something I cannot find time for. Of course, if you know of any established host that has proven to be able to handle 100+ active users at a time, I am more than interested.

    Regards

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    DeadEnd,

    I agree with most of what you said...except for:

    Because for the most part you recieve about the same Cpu and Ram, etc. on the shared hosting as you would on most VPS packages.
    I've experienced (first-hand) shared hosting setups that run circles around the performance of a VPS. A VPS may not even come close...many companies who offer VPSes are truly inexperienced the market. Sure, there's a few providers out there that do they know what they're doing, but I don't think a VPS is a good solution for the OP (as it's truly not necessary, as you [DeadEnd] touched on about it the main reason for having a VPS being root access). HTH,
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0

    I've experienced (first-hand) shared hosting setups that run circles around the performance of a VPS. A VPS may not even come close...many companies who offer VPSes are truly inexperienced the market. Sure, there's a few providers out there that do they know what they're doing, but I don't think a VPS is a good solution for the OP (as it's truly not necessary, as you [DeadEnd] touched on about it the main reason for having a VPS being root access). HTH,
    Any suggestions as to a shared host that can meet my requirements and not cause unpleasant surprises once my community starts to grow?

    Thanks

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    308
    My main concers is that a shared host will kick me out once I use up too many resources, and constantly searching for webhosts is something I cannot find time for. Of course, if you know of any established host that has proven to be able to handle 100+ active users at a time, I am more than interested.
    I still think you should definitely get in touch with MediaLayer, they are hosting some large sites, e.g. geeksgather.com. I'm sure they'd be able to to work something out with you. I was able to talk them into what I wanted at a good price.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Redcoat
    I still think you should definitely get in touch with MediaLayer, they are hosting some large sites, e.g. geeksgather.com. I'm sure they'd be able to to work something out with you. I was able to talk them into what I wanted at a good price.
    I am looking into medialayer, and also cartikahosting.com (from what I've searched so far, the feedback seems very positive).

    Basically, so far, my list of candidates would be:

    medialayer.com
    cartikahosting.com
    liquidweb.com
    powervps.com
    pair.com

    Please share your comments regarding the 5 hosts listed above, and feel free to suggest other hosts you have had a positive forum hosting experience with.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    2,626
    Quote Originally Posted by thewebdeveloper70
    medialayer.com
    Good choice! We've been in contact with the owner of MediaLayer for quite some time now and are very impressed. The design services offered by MediaLayer are phenomonal, and I've heard many good things about their hosting environment.

    Good luck!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedito
    for 100 concurrent users you should start looking for a VPS at least. +50 concurrent forums users shouldn't be hosted on a shared enviroment.
    Or a decent shared host.

    Mini

  21. #21
    I've experienced (first-hand) shared hosting setups that run circles around the performance of a VPS.
    Agreed 100% - in a shared environment configured for application hosting, you will have much greater access to CPU then in a VPS - however, you cannot be in the typical oversold environment - as soon as an environment is oversold - you will lose access to CPU and hence your bursting capabilities will be limited.

    Ok, I guess that you two disagree with most of the people at vbulletin too then
    Well, I do agree with VB - however, they are talking about a typical oversold shared environment. Any provider offering 100 GB transfer accounts probably isnt a good fit, as there won't be enough CPU to go around.

    Having said this, I agree with Jedito - either get a VPS or Dedicated server so that you are certain how many resources you have available - or go for a shared solution that is geared towards application hosting. Either solution will cost you roughly the same amount (ie the cost for a good VPS that can accomodate is roughly the same that an appropriate shared account will cost you)

    However, and again, a properly maintained shared account would better accomodate you, they are just more difficult to find....

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    (ie the cost for a good VPS that can accomodate is roughly the same that an appropriate shared account will cost you)
    A VPS would introduce a higher learning curve (even if managed) and therefore cost more, IMHO.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  23. #23
    I have sent an e-mail inquiry to the 5 hosts I am considering:

    medialayer.com
    cartikahosting.com
    liquidweb.com
    powervps.com
    pair.com

    I have specifically asked if they could handle 50-100 or even higher concurrent users.

    If you have other suggestions, please post them here.
    I am sure this thread is helping many others in my position and I want to make it as useful as possible.

    Thank you again for your replies

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    Please take a look to this thread at Vbulletin. http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199546
    You'll see why you wont stay long on a shared enviroment, specially, take a look to the Eva2000 post.
    Take in mind that people here is trying to sell their products too.
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedito
    Please take a look to this thread at Vbulletin. http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199546
    You'll see why you wont stay long on a shared enviroment, specially, take a look to the Eva2000 post.
    Take in mind that people here is trying to sell their products too.
    The thread makes no mention of shared hosting environments in specific. The thread refers to the hardware required to handle a certain amount of MySQL concurrent connections. However, the amount of users online at a forum is not equivalent to the number of MySQL concurrent connections. The statistic of the number of users on a forum is not "live". As far as I am aware, those numbers are also based on Apache 1.3.x and MySQL 4.x. Truly optimized environments would be using Apache 2.2.x and MySQL 5.x - there is a major difference. Install a PHP cache and make some custom tweaks and you'll get even more performance with less load on the server. 200 concurrent connections to MySQL could be the equivalent of nearly 1000 users showing up as "online". Not saying it is, but it certainly could be.

    Not all shared environments have the ability to handle this. But certain shared environments do a better job than even dedicated servers. Hence comes the specialization in application hosting, as opposed to generic budget hosting (classic, oversold, low performance Apache 1.3.x, MySQL 4.x cPanel/WHM setup).

    I hope this helps you understand.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    The thread makes no mention of shared hosting environments in specific.
    Exactly, it does ask for a full server resources that a site may need.
    In a shared enviroment you shared all those resources with other websites, therefore, you have less resources for your own site.

    BTW, he's not talking about Cpanel/WHM servers only.
    LoL oversold, good elevation shoot
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedito
    Exactly, it does ask for a full server resources that a site may need.
    In a shared enviroment you shared all those resources with other websites, therefore, you have less resources for your own site.

    BTW, he's not talking about Cpanel/WHM servers only.
    LoL oversold, good elevation shoot
    As stated in the post earlier, there isn't a direct correlation between the MySQL concurrent connections and the amount of users shown online on the forum itself. I believe this point is worth re-accentuating as you clearly did not understand it the first time.

    Of course, in a shared environment, you are sharing the resources with other websites, but if there are more resources to go around and very few websites in the environment you can get more resources than even on a dedicated server. Yes, it's possible.

    He is not talking about cPanel/WHM servers, nowhere did I mention that. My second paragraph compares application-geared hosts towards generic budget hosts. My comparison is correct, however you are free to take it out of proportion. There is no elevation shoot in the post, generic budget hosts are usually very oversold - especially these days when over 1TB transfer on a $10 shared account is commonplace.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    3,640
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0
    generic budget hosts are usually very oversold - especially these days when over 1TB transfer on a $10 shared account is commonplace.
    Agreed
    Simpli Networks, LLC :: http://www.simplinetworks.com :: Proudly 100% Owned.
    Providing Affordable Managed Cloud/VPS Servers & Server Management Solutions.
    We offer REAL 24x7x365 in-house support - proudly serving our customers since 2005!
    Want to learn more? Give us a call - +1 (844) 4SIMPLI or email sales[@]simplinetworks.com today!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    As stated in the post earlier, there isn't a direct correlation between the MySQL concurrent connections and the amount of users shown online on the forum itself. I believe this point is worth re-accentuating as you clearly did not understand it the first time.
    I guess that you don't have to take that Smart guy attitude, I'm not agressive with you, so, you should not trying to be with me.
    Just because I don't agree with you it doesn't mean that that I don't read you. To think that the number of of concurrent users can be divide by 4 to get the number of Mysql connections is something that I do not agree, yes, it may be happning, you have 1000 persons with their window open just watching the wall and not browsing the forum, it may happen, sure, but is very improbable though.

    Of course, in a shared environment, you are sharing the resources with other websites, but if there are more resources to go around and very few websites in the environment you can get more resources than even on a dedicated server. Yes, it's possible.
    Yes, maybe in a clustered load balanced servers enviroment, don't know how many companies does offer that, the last that I hear was MT with very poor results.
    A clustered enviroment alone is not going to be any better, because you're going to still share Mysql/Apache with other sites, yes, you can split the stress of Mysql and Apache between 2 servers, but usually, the bigger charge is on Mysql, which is still in one server.
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    I guess that you don't have to take that Smart guy attitude, I'm not agressive with you, so, you should not trying to be with me.
    Just because I don't agree with you it doesn't mean that that I don't read you. To think that the number of of concurrent users can be divide by 4 to get the number of Mysql connections is something that I do not agree, yes, it may be happning, you have 1000 persons with their window open just watching the wall and not browsing the forum, it may happen, sure, but is very improbable though.
    I wasn't trying to be aggressive. But you don't appear to have acknowledged that part of my post, therefore I saw the need to reiterate. You don't have to agree, that's not a problem. If you have 1000 users showing up in vBulletin, there's a few things to consider:

    - That is built up from the past 900 seconds, not live.
    - A user "online" doesn't mean that the user is actually requesting something from the server. Especially on a forum like this where there is a lot of material on one page, users are left reading.
    - I have seen a case where there have been only 200 (or even less) concurrent connections to MySQL, yet ~ 1000 users showing up on the board. Perhaps it is improbable, but we've seen it therefore we use it as an example.

    Yes, maybe in a clustered load balanced servers enviroment, don't know how many companies does offer that, the last that I hear was MT with very poor results.
    MT is a bad example of such an environment. In fact, I would toss them in the "generic budget host" category as they offer unrealistic pricing. If they offered realistic pricing on their "grid" environment they wouldn't have all the problems you talk about. There are some "premium" application hosting geared clustered environments out there, e.g. www.cartikahosting.com. Yes, I'm recommending a competitor, and happily.

    A clustered enviroment alone is not going to be any better, because you're going to still share Mysql/Apache with other sites, yes, you can split the stress of Mysql and Apache between 2 servers, but usually, the bigger charge is on Mysql, which is still in one server.
    An undersold, well-optimized and maintained clustered environment will run circles around a single server. MySQL clustering solutions such as, but not limited to, m/Cluster invalidate your presumption of MySQL remaining on a single server.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    I have seen a case where there have been only 200 (or even less) concurrent connections to MySQL, yet ~ 1000 users showing up on the board. Perhaps it is improbable, but we've seen it therefore we use it as an example.
    Sure, it may be possible, you can be at Mc Donnals and see 300 people inside of it but only 2 eating, it may happen too, but is very improbable
    There are some "premium" application hosting geared clustered environments out there, e.g. www.cartikahosting.com. Yes, I'm recommending a competitor, and happily.
    I may be wrong, and I would like to be corrected if I'm, but as far as I know they offered regular Hsphere cluster enviroment, didn't know that they were offering load balanced service too.
    MySQL clustering solutions such as, but not limited to, m/Cluster invalidate your presumption of MySQL remaining on a single server.
    Correct me if I'm not wrong, but are you talking about a load balanced enviroment with mirroring? I fail to see how in a clustered servers is not going to push all the mysql charge in only one Mysql server. (I honestly don't see it, probably is the time, almost 0:05 here )
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Sure, it may be possible, you can be at Mc Donnals and see 300 people inside of it but only 2 eating, it may happen too, but is very improbable
    A better ratio would be 50 people inside but only 10 eating. That is possible. There are long lines at times. In all seriousness, I'll see if I can get a concrete statistic on this and I will post this right here in this thread. Also, especially if you stop by a McDonald's on a high way, many people simply go there to use the rest rooms

    I may be wrong, and I would like to be corrected if I'm, but as far as I know they offered regular Hsphere cluster enviroment, didn't know that they were offering load balanced service too.
    I classify them as a 'load balanced' environment because technically the load of services is balanced across multiple servers. The literal definition of "load balancing" is vague and open for interpretation. Incidentally, even Netcraft seems to agree with my classification

    Correct me if I'm not wrong, but are you talking about a load balanced enviroment with mirroring? I fail to see how in a clustered servers is not going to push all the mysql charge in only one Mysql server.
    Well for one, vBulletin has a slave and master system where you can have an essentially "clustered"/"load balanced" setup. Technologies such as m/Cluster, as mentioned in my earlier post, allow multiple, clustered nodes with the same MySQL data. As an example, EV1 offers this: http://www.ev1servers.net/Private/mCluster.aspx

  33. #33
    for 100 concurrent users you should start looking for a VPS at least. +50 concurrent forums users shouldn't be hosted on a shared enviroment.
    Or a decent shared host.
    Please keep in mind that number of concurrent users on a forum is not equal to the number of concurrent SQL processes on the server.

    As an example there could be 200 users on your forums but only 20 members could be using a process (process means, posting a new thread, search forums etc) at any given time. With my personal experience with forums,100-200 users on a high end shared server wouldn't be much of a problem.
    Last edited by SkyNetHosting; 11-18-2006 at 11:37 PM.
    [DC'S] SINGAPORE. AUSTRALIA. JAPAN. INDIA. CHINA HK. USA. UK. NETHERLANDS. GERMANY. SOUTH AFRICA
    MyCompanyWeb™: Start Your Own Professional Web Hosting Company in 24 Hours
    SkyNetHosting.Net - SEO Hosting. Reseller Hosting. Shared Hosting & VPS - 14 Years in Business!
    Dedicated IP + SSL + WHMCS + Domain Reseller + Master Reseller + 100% SSD + End User Support and More!

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyNetHosting
    Please keep in mind that number of concurrent users on a forum is not equal to the number of concurrent SQL processes on the server.

    As an example there could be 200 users on your forums but only 20 members could be using a process (process means, posting a new thread, search forums etc) at any given time. With my personal experience with forums,100-200 users on a high end shared server wouldn't be much of a problem.
    Thanks for the support.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    I classify them as a 'load balanced' environment because technically the load of services is balanced across multiple servers.
    I guess that they don't yet (or probably already have but not by the time when that message was post on their forum
    Additionally, we are in the process of paving the way for improving on our clustered environment by incorporating load balancing solutions as an added layer of performance and stability on top of our existing clustered, infrastructure.
    Well for one, vBulletin has a slave and master system where you can have an essentially "clustered"/"load balanced" setup. Technologies such as m/Cluster, as mentioned in my earlier post, allow multiple, clustered nodes with the same MySQL data
    I don't think that this is the case of normal Hsphere clusters at least.
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Newport Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,920
    First of all 100 concurrent connections is NOT a lot. even a simple single CPU dual core could handle tens of thousands of hits.

    The difference is how the host configures mysql. if they don't know what they're doing (not uncommon at all) then yes, you could overwhelm a server. But if configured right that's nothing.

    I'm not sure how vps would out perform a shared account. especially knowing that shared can mean anything from a single server overloaded to a clustered encvironment that has a ton of unused resrouces.

    it's impossible to compare a finite solution with an unknown.

    I think you'd be fine on any shared host. Especially since you aren't even online yet.

    As stated above. connections and processes are completely different.
    Show your reciprocal links on your website. eReferrer

  37. #37
    Please take a look to this thread at Vbulletin. http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199546
    You'll see why you wont stay long on a shared enviroment, specially, take a look to the Eva2000 post.
    Take in mind that people here is trying to sell their products too.
    Jedito, you - and others (and this includes VB)- need to re-evaluate your definition of shared hosting - you have got to understand, the majority of VB clients are looking at single server cpanel solutions - and as such, they need to provide their customers with advise based on theose criteria - doesnt mean it is what they believe and doesnt mean other options do not exist - they just understand that the majority of their clients are looking for a $5 hosting account, and as such, they are preparing them for what they can expect - I assure you VB understands that their script can be hosted wiht 100's of simultaneous users in a "proper" shared hosting environment - however, they also understand, that in this marketplace, not many "proper" shared hosting environments exist...

    A clustered enviroment alone is not going to be any better, because you're going to still share Mysql/Apache with other sites, yes, you can split the stress of Mysql and Apache between 2 servers, but usually, the bigger charge is on Mysql, which is still in one server.
    Jedito, the big advantage of a cluster is that you can spread servies. We have customers with dedicated web servers sharing a DB server and customers with shared web servers having a dedicated mysql server. What you need to understand is that a cluster is dynamic and can be configured however you like. Say what you will, but, many nodes within our cluster have less single points of failure then many advertised "high availablility, laod balanced solutions".

    It is OK if you do not fully understand how our clustering works and how we sell it - as honestly, we havent done a great job at marketing it or presenting it - however, a VDC (Virtual Dedicated Cluster) is something quite unique - and we are able to offer people a customized solution between shared and dedicated resources so as to keep them in a shared environment MUCH longer then what most hosts can accomodate. Obviously this isnt for $5/month - however, the total cost of ownership associated with staying in a shared environment is much lower the a VPS or dedicated solution....

    End of the day, all that is important is that you do not throw a blanket statement around shared hosting. Shared hosting encompasses ALOT more then $5 hosting accounts in an oversold single server environment...

    If you dont like our model, or dont think there is benefit to our model - that is of course your perogative - however, please refrain from generalizations or negatory comments towards an offering you really do not understand....
    Last edited by cartika-andrew; 11-19-2006 at 02:04 AM.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    Jedito, you - and others (and this includes VB)- need to re-evaluate your definition of shared hosting - you have got to understand, the majority of VB clients are looking at single server cpanel solutions
    Yes, Cpanel is the most popular Control Panel, however, why we have to re-evaluate the definition?
    I assure you VB understands that their script can be hosted wiht 100's of simultaneous users in a "proper" shared hosting environment - however, they also understand, that in this marketplace, not many "proper" shared hosting environments exist...
    Well.. when you say "proper" (assuming that you talk about yours services) you're telling that ther other are "improper", right?

    Jedito, the big advantage of a cluster is that you can spread servies. We have customers with dedicated web servers sharing a DB server and customers with shared web servers having a dedicated mysql server. What you need to understand is that a cluster is dynamic and can be configured however you like. Say what you will, but, many nodes within our cluster have less single points of failure then many advertised "high availablility, laod balanced solutions".
    As I told you many times, I did used Hsphere, I think that I even used before than your company even exist, my experience was unpleasure, but that doesn't mean that I don't know how it works, however, unless something changed radicaly, Hsphere does not work as load balancer itself, you can assign a Web server to a domain and a "dedicated mysql" server just to one DB, however, that does not make load balanced, if we agree with the load balance definition of "In computing, load balancing (computing) refers to balancing server traffic amongst multiple computers. " (Wiki), you do not load balance giving 1 Mysql server to a DB, you just don't share it with another site, you may giving a "dedicated Mysql" server to a site, but that's still is not load balance, at least, not in my definition.

    It is OK if you do not fully understand how our clustering works and how we sell it
    Its not Ok if you try to make me look like an ignorant, is really not. How you sell it, I don't care, how it work, I do know. And clustered is not equal to load balanced.

    If you dont like our model, or dont think there is benefit to our model - that is of course your perogative - however, please refrain from generalizations or negatory comments towards an offering you really do not understand
    You're puting yourself too much importance. I don't care your model, really, I don't care at all, Is not that I don't like, is just that I don't care. And What's the offer that I don't understand? If you're now offering load balanced services, good for you, Indeed, that may something wrong that you did, because is not on your site. But I repeat, Cluster is not equal to load balanced. Unless you mirror the contents across several servers and "balance the load" between them if one server get swamped, but that's independent of any control panel or even OS.
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  39. #39
    Originally Posted by SkyNetHosting
    Please keep in mind that number of concurrent users on a forum is not equal to the number of concurrent SQL processes on the server.

    As an example there could be 200 users on your forums but only 20 members could be using a process (process means, posting a new thread, search forums etc) at any given time. With my personal experience with forums,100-200 users on a high end shared server wouldn't be much of a problem.
    Thanks for the support.
    You are most welcome
    Last edited by SkyNetHosting; 11-19-2006 at 04:42 AM.
    [DC'S] SINGAPORE. AUSTRALIA. JAPAN. INDIA. CHINA HK. USA. UK. NETHERLANDS. GERMANY. SOUTH AFRICA
    MyCompanyWeb™: Start Your Own Professional Web Hosting Company in 24 Hours
    SkyNetHosting.Net - SEO Hosting. Reseller Hosting. Shared Hosting & VPS - 14 Years in Business!
    Dedicated IP + SSL + WHMCS + Domain Reseller + Master Reseller + 100% SSD + End User Support and More!

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    208
    Just to quick comments on this one:

    1. Check out: http://www.pair.com/policies/dbresource.html

    Although online users do not mean concurrent db connections, 15 is WAY TOO LOW and you will always run into the risk of getting mysql connection errors especially at peak times.

    2.
    First of all 100 concurrent connections is NOT a lot. even a simple single CPU dual core could handle tens of thousands of hits.
    Do you know how to count? He is talking about dynamic PHP / MYSQL pages. You would be luck if you can reach 1000 req/sec on a single CPU machine.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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