archiveman Posted June 17, 2006 Posted June 17, 2006 Hi, I'm currently running one site on a dedicated server (Quad Xeons, 2Gb RAM) and getting around 20,000 visitors a day, at 20mbps bandwidth. I now need to urgently upgrade in anticipation of up to 200,000 visitors a day and 100mbps+ bandwidth. What would you suggest as the best solution to easily cope with this traffic/server load - and also allow further expansion beyond this? In other words, should I be thinking about a load balanced server cluster or is there another simpler/more suitable way? Btw, the site in question uses static files only - no databases, email, php, asp etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Quote
MikeJ Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 If you are running a static only site (such as an image hosting service), bandwidth is what you need more than anything. You don't need quad xeon servers to host static content... your cpu's are probably sitting fairly idle and you are paying a lot of money for cpu power you likely don't need, that could be better spent buying more cheaper servers to spread the bandwidth out. Load balanced server clusters are great... if you have the money. You would probably be better served splitting your content across multiple servers if your application would support that (or you can code it in). Take image hosting as an example again... You could host certain images on server1, another set of images on server2, more on server3, etc.... so while not truly redundant, you could maintain a spreading of the overall bandwidth usage across servers cheaply. This is actually how a lot of the the free image hosting providers do it, and why when you upload a file to them, you'll get a link that's something like img121.somehost.com/.... Quote
archiveman Posted June 19, 2006 Author Posted June 19, 2006 If you are running a static only site (such as an image hosting service), bandwidth is what you need more than anything. You don't need quad xeon servers to host static content... your cpu's are probably sitting fairly idle and you are paying a lot of money for cpu power you likely don't need, that could be better spent buying more cheaper servers to spread the bandwidth out. Load balanced server clusters are great... if you have the money. You would probably be better served splitting your content across multiple servers if your application would support that (or you can code it in). Take image hosting as an example again... You could host certain images on server1, another set of images on server2, more on server3, etc.... so while not truly redundant, you could maintain a spreading of the overall bandwidth usage across servers cheaply. This is actually how a lot of the the free image hosting providers do it, and why when you upload a file to them, you'll get a link that's something like img121.somehost.com/.... Thanks for your reply Mike - but take a look at my CPU usage, particularly that spike on Wednesday last week! when an extra 100,000+visitors hit the site and the CPU was maxed out - what do you reckon was happening there? Quote
MikeJ Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Do you have load graphs? Load is more telling than CPU usage. Also, I'm not sure how your graphs are scaled... how you are getting 760% cpu usage and what is max? Quote
archiveman Posted June 19, 2006 Author Posted June 19, 2006 Do you have load graphs? Load is more telling than CPU usage. Also, I'm not sure how your graphs are scaled... how you are getting 760% cpu usage and what is max? I have no idea about CPU usage % - these are TCH figures (I don't know much about servers at all) - but here you go Mike - load graph: Quote
MikeJ Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 With your load only at 1 most of the time, and peaking at 2... your running well within your system's capacity. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.