I am wondering what the estimates of the maximum server load may be. The company I am working for is a small family-friend run business, actually we market different sorts of alternative energy products, but anyway, we may place an ad on CNN or another large news company. I am just making sure that Bluehost will be reliable for, what my superiors claim to be 10k simultaneous users browsing the site; I am not THAT optimistic that 10 thousand people watching CNN will see the ad and go to our website all at the same time, but the general idea is the same. Has anyone else had experience with extremely large server loads; and if there were crashes or issues with this?
So far I have had no problems; stats show that there are ~20,000 hits a month, most of them from myself. And about ~200,000 kilobytes a month. Daily hits average over the months have been around 900. So I haven't seen any flaws, but considering there are such small numbers compared to what we hope for... I just want to be sure that the site wont crash; and if it does, how long, is there a way to redict to another server, etc.
if you think the shared hosting cant met your requirement first place, absolutely dont try it :D
as i seen in this forums, for example when you host vbulletin, and have 50+ user online same time, you probably will hit the cpu over usage for your account :)
ask for a dedicated server if needed.
BH does not offer dedicated servers.
Originally Posted by charlesgan
yer i was about to say lol
no BH only offer higher end Servers for more server loading :p
As shared hosting goes, the servers can handle quite a bit of traffic if the site is setup to handle a lot of traffic.
That is to say, if you think you are going to get really pounded, then using a freeware dynamic blogging software is not the way to go.
The easiest would be to have purely static content. That requires almost no CPU, no mysql access, no lags of any sort before being served.
Static content is not always what you need. In that case, you could don a hybrid idea. That is to say, you have dynamic content, but you don't serve it dynamically. In other words, let people post, add comments, etc, etc, and have a static page generated from that dynamic content every ten minutes. In that way, you serve static pages that change often enough for most purposes.
And if you truly need dynamic content all the time, the servers handle it fairly well (to hit the quota, you have to use more CPU than an entire 2 GHz opteron for over three minutes, or two full cpus for 1.5 minutes, etc). I have seen very little well written and optimised code that churns a cpu that much. If you do happen to have that, and you expect that much traffic, then a dedicated offering may be what you need. Of course, if you do full dynamic at those kind of loads (10k simultaneous users) you would need a cluster of servers.
On the other hand, I have worked for several companies that assumed a roll out would give them exponential increases in loads, traffic, etc, and very rarely does it pan out (the only exception was years ago at Holiday Inn Corporate where marketing didn't tell the I.T. groups about a superbowl commercial that strongly pushed the website. It crushed the network connection. But I digress.)
Anyway, to end my rant, I would just say, if you expect a lot of traffic, the easiest (and often best) thing is to use static pages, at least until the heavy load has passed.
If you set up your account well, you use caching or just don't use dynamic content you can handle even more without too many problems actually.
I hear a lot of 'caching talk' lately, but what is it and can it be done also on stuff like Coppermine?
like what most people said if it's mostly static content you'll be fine. if the page is dynamic (ie. php) then you might run into cpu quota problems if your pages uses alot of cpu time. if you can afford to run cnn ads about your website kinda dumb to just pay for shared hosting. if your site is really mission critical then i suggest you get a dedicated server.
In theory there shouldn't be any problem with that, the only thing I don't know is that if someone made a caching system (or might be bundled?) otherwise you'd have quite a bit of work to do.
Originally Posted by Hercules
We are actually working on a php caching system. It's not yet ready for prime time, but it is in the works.
Originally Posted by indy2kro