Results 26 to 46 of 46
Thread: 12k Website On Celeron?
-
06-17-2009, 07:40 PM #26Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,007
It depends on the content. It's a blog, so if it's mostly text, then compression (mod_deflate/mod_gzip/whatever solution your server provides) would reduce bandwidth load enormously.
If it's image-heavy, a CDN could really help with cheaply reducing load for images, and there's also services like Coral that can help if the blog is non-profit.
-
06-17-2009, 08:09 PM #27Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,222
You've not given any indication of the load, so it's impossible to say anything.
10,000 unique visitors a day is an average of one every 10 seconds.
So, how much total work does each visitor generate for the server? If the daily average is more than 10 seconds worth of CPU time plus disk I/O time you could have problems.
You really should measure this on your test system before deciding on a production system. Admittedly it's hard, because you won't have a profile of the user activity; but you just have to make your best guesses.
I would say you can assume the limiting factor for static web page components is disk I/O ... 7200rpm drives will limit you to something like 100 components per second (ymmv). That's much lower than the CPU's ability to deliver URL requests - that will be able to deliver over 1000 URLs a second.
So for assessing the capacity to deliver static components, you can ignore the CPU, and just take the figure as 100 a second for 7200rpm drives.
Now you need to know how many static components the server delivers per web page - external CSS stylesheets, external Javascript files, jpg images and suchlike. If the figure is, say, 20, that would mean you could deliver 100/20 which is 5 web pages a second from the server.
With an average of 10 seconds web server time per user per day, that would mean you could deliver up to 50 static web pages per user per day with the server fully loaded. Planning on a peak:average ratio of 4:1, that would mean 12 web pages per user per day.
You appeciate these figures are for illustrative purposes - to show how you can start a capacity plan for the server.
And that leads on to the big question: apart from static pages, what other resources get consumed?
That depends on what programming is being executed, apart from the web server function of taking URLs, reading corresponding static disk data, and serving it.
And we don't know. You really need to get capacity guidelines from whoever designed the programs. The one thing we can say is the other programs may comsume *far more* resources than the web server function. (That's why there are all these programs available for caching - caching the output of a programs means that subsequent requests for the same output can be delivered by the web server component, without repeating all the program execution needed to create that output in the firstplace.)
-
06-17-2009, 08:30 PM #28Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 3,816
Not just images, but you could run nginx or some reverse proxy before Apache and have it serve all static files.
AFAIK, Wordpress has a crap ton of js/css includes, and if you have a lot of plugins, there's a ton more js there, and the templates usually use a large amount of images
-
06-18-2009, 12:51 AM #29Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,222
-
06-18-2009, 01:19 AM #30Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- chicago
- Posts
- 1,781
-
06-18-2009, 06:07 AM #31Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Mumbai, India
- Posts
- 126
Well Celeron is not enough, go on Xenon Servers which are more powerful,
Even AMD Opteron can do
-
06-18-2009, 01:53 PM #32Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada
- Posts
- 653
That server will definitely crash at some point. Go for a Core2Duo or an Xeon.
█ Tailored VPS offers fully customizable VPS Hosting
█ Powered by OpenVZ | Servers located in the USA | 99.9% Uptime
-
06-18-2009, 02:00 PM #33Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 80
Ya i said Celerons are crap.
-
06-18-2009, 02:29 PM #34Junior Guru
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Posts
- 217
Since you are this budget oriented, I recommend:
1. 1U Intel Single Socket 3200 chipset barebone $389.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16816110030
2. Celeron E1400. It is a new chip, dual core 45nm 2Ghz for 49 dollars. It is far better than Conroe-L single core 1.6Ghz
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116069
Or, Q8200. It is a much better chip though for only $90 dollars more.
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=Q8200
3. 8GB of ram. 4 DIMMS of the following ECC ram $120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820134881
4. A pair of Western Digital RE3 500GB hard drives $150
-
06-18-2009, 02:41 PM #35Newbie
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 27
i would go with xeon with 2 gb ram minimum
-
06-18-2009, 03:11 PM #36Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,007
SimpleCDN starts at 3.4 cents per gig starting at a commit of zero. That's cheaper than bandwidth overage costs from pretty much any host that doesn't specialize in bulk bandwidth.
If you aren't aware of the available pricing of popular CDN providers, why are you claiming that *I* have no idea what I'm talking about?
-
06-18-2009, 03:30 PM #37Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 569
AMD is actually underrated. its cheaper and performance wise comparable to Intel.
try Quad Core Phenom series. I have seen them going around $100/mo at joe's Datacenter. this would be a monster server
http://joesdatacenter.com/dedi.html
-
06-18-2009, 03:46 PM #38Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- chicago
- Posts
- 1,781
-
06-18-2009, 03:50 PM #39Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,007
-
06-18-2009, 07:29 PM #40Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,222
That's worth knowing; thank you.
They have a "savings comparison" page; the first example is a 450MB video game "Downloaded by 675,000 people over a period of one year", and the lowest cost is $10,150.93
OK, what would it cost to do it with servers instead of a CDN?
450MB times 675,000 is 303,750GB. Divided by 12 that's an average of 25,000GB per month. That would require three servers with bandwidth of 10TB per month - eg 10tb.com Ember at $199 a month.
So it would cost $7,200 to do it with 10tb.com servers, compared with $10,000 using the CDN. (Obviously there are cheaper servers than 10tb.com)
Still, the extra cost of using a CDN can be much less than I had thought; and there may be benefits from using the CDN that make the extra cost worth it.
-
06-18-2009, 07:48 PM #41Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,717
While OP said (I believe) that he'd like to keep this under $100 a month so for that reason I'd go with the $99 deal from Take2Hosting for this, I really don't understand why all you guys are saying the Celeron's not enough or will crash.
I think you guys are seriously overestimating the amount of power it takes to run Wordpress in a dedicated environment. For starters, you're not doing shared hosting so there's no need for things like .htaccess etc. That means you can use lighttpd/nginx directly, instead of putting it in front of Apache. It'll haul ass with very little memory footprint, leaving more RAM for MySQL.
Use some of your budget to stuff the server full of RAM, because most Celeron deals these days come with 512MB and that right there will be your choke point with MySQL. 2GB and you've got room to use better configuration variables to speed things up quite a bit when the database is actually used.
WP-SuperCache, which I linked to in a previous post, works wonders. I'm not sure of the ins+outs of getting it to work with nginx/lighty, but I'm pretty positive it could be done. If you do it right, the majority of users aren't going to hit a PHP-generated page very often... so one of your light alternative webservers can fling out gzipped static content all day long. If you are only putting one site on the server and you optimize the server for that very specific task (for example I would definitely not put a control panel on it) I don't see any reason a Celeron couldn't do 10-12k uniques a day. I also don't see any reason it'd require bi/tri-daily reboots if configured correctly.
Oh and to be fair, I'm still an Apache fanboy - and Apache could be made almost as fast as the others, but it'll probably be substantially less work just to slap up nginx or lighty and be done with it.
If your budget truly is $100 though, Take2Hosting will get you a quadcore with 2GB RAM that'll handle that site without sweating.I used to run the oldest commercial Mumble host.
-
06-18-2009, 08:13 PM #42Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- chicago
- Posts
- 1,781
Sorry but getting a 5 meg fixed pipe is kind of stupid maybe i have just dealt mostly with high traffic sites / servers but i dont know anyone that even sells 5 meg capped boxes that was something i remember 5 years ago when bandwidth was really expensive.
Im sorry for insulting you for posting an idea that latched on to another dumb idea.
you can find 1000 providers that will sell you a server for $100 with a 100 meg port and a min of 1000 gigs bandwith.
-
06-18-2009, 09:59 PM #43Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 2,042
-
06-18-2009, 10:45 PM #44Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,007
I won't say you can't do it cheaply. In fact, you could do it far more cheaply than 10TB. Although the quality will probably decline.
There are, however, various advantages to a CDN:
1) Lower latency to users due to the distributed nature of a CDN
2) Ease of management; three servers from 10TB would require load balancing and syncing between servers. Three servers to keep up to date, secure, and managed.
3) Scalability. I don't know what 10TB's overage fees are, but I bet they're not the $0.0199 that they charge for the included bandwidth. A CDN will scale up virtually infinitely in demand while having linear costs.
4) Reliability. Unless your dedicated server based cluster is getting into some fancy load balancing involving DNS trickery (and round-robin DNS isn't sufficient since it doesn't guarantee equally spread load), you'll have a single point of failure; the box handling the balancing.
There are other reasons I'm sure, so it all comes down to if the benefits outweigh the extra cost. From a management perspective, a CDN can be a heck of a lot less work.
-
06-18-2009, 10:50 PM #45Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,007
Fixed pipes are still extremely common, since unmetered bandwidth is rather popular. If you're on 95th percentile billing, then your overall throughput could still be a concern even if you're not strictly limited to 5mbit (or perhaps you made a 5mbit commit and your costs go up significantly if the 95th percentile is 5.01mbit).
I ran a very high-traffic site. One quarter to one third of a million pageviews per day (and that's not counting images, javascript files, css files, etc). I did it with an average bandwidth usage of 5-6mbit/s, although I was metered so it was burstable. And it was a hand-written site that I heavily optimized. But for a site with more than an order of magnitude more traffic than the OP, even accounting for busts I made do with only about double the 5mbit that we're discussing here.
In short, it's not that dumb an idea after all. I wouldn't recommend it, certainly, but if the price is right, it *IS* workable.
-
06-18-2009, 11:36 PM #46Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- chicago
- Posts
- 1,781
I wont get into my personal opinion on unmetered bandwith my comment was about a 5mbit capped port something that is silly in my opinion.
i have done all html and scripts no images around the same amount of hits with my 95th being under 4 megs also.
i disagree on the if the price is right i would be worried about the quality of any network selling capped 5 meg connections in the usa in the hosting market as it is today.