Why register for free on WebRadiance? |
Why register for free on WebRadiance? |
![]() |
Welcome to WebRadiance forums! WebRadiance is a place for discussion and help on a large range of web design and development related topics such as HTML, CSS, ASP & .NET, PHP and SEO. It is provided for free, without ads and is a friendly place for beginners and professionals alike. By joining us today you can take part in our rapidly growing community. Registering enables you to:
|
![]() ![]() |
Feb 14 2008, 04:55 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
W.R. Private Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 12-February 08 From: UK Member No.: 800 |
I have a website in the works at the moment, and its quite multimedia focused being able to stream video and allow members to download them too. So I'd imagine this would put a bit of strain on the server. The server is dedicated and is running off an old Athlon 2400+, so it doesn't have a great spec, but for a server it seems adequate.
I'm also planning to host a few other websites which won't be as demanding as the main site I'm hosting on it. But how badly do you think the server load could get and how often does this sort of problem occur if anyone has experienced it before? -------------------- |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 05:27 AM
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Codesmith Group: Administrators Posts: 947 Joined: 4-April 06 From: San Diego Member No.: 3 |
What method are you using for the video streaming?
|
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 07:39 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
W.R. Private Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 12-February 08 From: UK Member No.: 800 |
When it becomes active I intend to use a similar styled system to youtube, I've built my own flv player and all videos are in the compressed .flv format.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 08:34 AM
Post
#4
|
|
![]() Loose bits sink chips Group: Administrators Posts: 2,068 Joined: 4-April 06 From: Kent, UK Member No.: 2 |
It's a bit like asking, 'How long is a piece of string'?
Serving up video content, straight from flv files will largely come down to your hard drive and network speeds. One of those will become a bottleneck first. Your actual CPU and memory load will be quite low, because you're simply chucking a file from the hard drive, straight over the internet without it needing to be processed. The title of the topic 'How many sites can a server hold?' is a little misleading, but let me clarify in case your uncertain. This, again, is a length of string question. It all depends on several factors:
In practice, it's almost impossible to say. The best way to find out what will be enough, is to test it. As a really rough guide: Shared hosts regularly put up to 1000 low-visit websites on one quad-core 8Gb machine. -------------------- |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 09:40 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
W.R. Private Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 12-February 08 From: UK Member No.: 800 |
Cool, thanks for that post Sirkent
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 10:18 AM
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Loose bits sink chips Group: Administrators Posts: 2,068 Joined: 4-April 06 From: Kent, UK Member No.: 2 |
At the company where I work, the busiest website has about 10,000 visits on a busy day. It's an intensive perl-based database-driven website with a lot of very complicated queries. Our current boxes (quad core xeons, 8Gb memory) rarely hit 5% cpu usage or more than 1Gb memory on a busy day.
In practice, we have one server for the application (perl) and another for the database. Recently, we performed some load testing, to see how far we could go. A company used a script which can make as many clients as required, which connect to a website and go through a pre-determined series of pages on that website. We used a commonly-used series of pages, including one of the most intensive available on the website, which requires a great deal of database and perl processing. We reached 300 users, requesting that page every second, before the server processing the perl reached 95% CPU and about 4Gb RAM. The database server sat at around 30% CPU and less RAM if I recall correctly. Even being conservative and putting everything on one box, I think you could easily chuck 200 concurrent users at one of those servers - and the likelihood is that you would get many more because nobody will request 1 page every second and not all pages will be as intensive. -------------------- |
|
|
|
Feb 14 2008, 11:18 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
W.R. Private Group: Members Posts: 28 Joined: 12-February 08 From: UK Member No.: 800 |
It seems as though my fears are unfounded, especially as the site will be building its memberbase from scratch. The only reason I seemed concerned was that this isn't exactly a quad core server with 8GB of ram its more of a bargain basement server per-say. But thanks very much for the advice, I should get back to building the site ready for launch really
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Jul 19 2008, 01:26 PM
Post
#8
|
|
![]() W.R. Corporal Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 19-July 08 From: Rotterdam, NLD Member No.: 1,069 |
Put your static files on a content delivery network such as Akamai. Amazon S3 is a good choice if you start small.
No hosting provider can ever offer similar rates: overselled ones usually kick you out when you use too many resources (regardless of what they promise) and decent ones would happily host you but you end up paying far more for storage and traffic. Even when you host yourself you might not be able to compete with available rates. -------------------- |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 8th January 2009 - 12:35 PM |