New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Dedicated Server vs BackBlaze B2 for static file hosting
celicaraptor
Member
in General
Hello everyone,
I have a 6Euro server from OneProvider(online.net) with a slow atom processor and 1TB of HDD.I currently have some performance issues(most images load fine but some take 20s even though they are the same size) and i was thinking if it was worth it to switch to BackBlaze B2 and cloudflare for my image hosting.
Comments
It is worth. The alternative is s3 + cloudfront (with bandwidth pricing)
My opinion of course
Bottleneck on seeking image on HDD with million files inodes, change to SSD/NVME or switch to CDN images
Are you running NGINX only?
Yes,NGINX only.
It could be but i just have 1500 images,that's not a lot.Maybe the HDD is trash
Thank you for your opinion
That's weird, I have a small vps storage with 2 million small images in a single folder. No hiccup. But not using oneprovider. And it is even using NGINX+Apache.
Try to monitor the network/latency/ping/traceroute.
Your issue is very common to many providers offering big storage servers or VPS.
Backblaze is not for serving static files. However they have this partnership with Cloudflare now, which gives you free bandwidth. But I still dont use it for image hosting.
I suggest getting buyvm slice+slab or letbox then use bunnycdn.
Your server only have one(1) disk/HDD? If so then I really suggest to just get a VPS storage.
1500 images only you can go with ssd or nvme ssd vps.
I just migrated to Backblaze and Cloudflare.Seems to work great so far.