Which CPU model good for handle very large traffic amount website

FlamesRunner

You do know you could handle like 2-3x the visitors with NGINX... Apache is horribly inefficient with the default configuration.

zidit

Now, I installed nginx. Will monitor it today. and let everyone know the result

Jonchun

@FlamesRunner said:
You do know you could handle like 2-3x the visitors with NGINX... Apache is horribly inefficient with the default configuration.

To be fair nginx is just as bad with default configuration if not worse.

sman

@FlamesRunner said:
You do know you could handle like 2-3x the visitors with NGINX... Apache is horribly inefficient with the default configuration.

Gee, took the nginx fanboys like 20 posts to respond. Usually they are infesting threads like this much faster.

Nomad

@sman said:

So you are the Apache boy in opposition?
He has a point about nginx though.

@OP, You can try Varnish as well. But with that CPU, you shouldn't have that kind of load

Install memcache as well. You are missing a lot of configuration points I presume.

Kupol

How do you test your website for 'real life' traffic? Do you just point siege at it with a list of URLs? I would like to test various configurations and see load it generates.

libro22

You should post your configurations, there's something wrong with them...

HHVM is good, as long as you're pro-actively debugging your code, your software stack modules... It's pretty easy to install in Debian/Ubuntu. But you're using cPanel, so you have to compile it on your own. Someone made a yum repository, look for it, but I'm not sure if it's production ready. (If you're comfortable, go with Webmin and do everything manually)

Then we have the Apache-Nginx route. They say Apache/mod_php (make sure to turn off AllowOverride) is good for the PHP side but consumes more memory in comparison to Nginx. Nginx/fcgi is pretty okay as a default install. If you want to go with PHP-FPM, benchmark your results as it can't solve every case there is. See what will work for you. Use both if you wish. There's also the Apache 2.2 vs Apache 2.4 optimization battle, look for it.

Check which is causing your server problems. Remember that PHP loves CPU while MySQL loves I/O.

For drop-in replacements, we have Litespeed (please configure cause you said your traffic is huge) then Unixy Varnish. There's a Wordpress plugin for that too which costs $499 I think.

Reetus

3982 processes? sheesh

pkr5770

Good thing you used a semi transparent censor otherwise we would not be able to see that your website is xtube lmao

inthecloudblog

He is running such a popular website and only having 1 server?
I have around 20 dedies .
If I had the cash ads give him I'd go with a quad at least, ddr4 ( plenty of it) and some fancy storage solution. Maybe even make it redundant.

vfuse

Probably not let apache use 3000+ processes. Figure out the right apache config for your setup before considering upgrading to a more powerful setup.

sman

@Kupol said:
How do you test your website for 'real life' traffic? Do you just point siege at it with a list of URLs? I would like to test various configurations and see load it generates.

Apache Benchmark works pretty good.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/programs/ab.html

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12732182/ab-load-testing

https://www.petefreitag.com/item/689.cfm

http://infoheap.com/ab-apache-bench-load-testing/

https://www.devside.net/wamp-server/load-testing-apache-with-ab-apache-bench

Kupol

@sman

Thanks I know about ab, I prefer siege more than ab tho.

https://www.joedog.org/siege-manual/

sman

Also, if you are running mod_php switch to mod_fcgid. That will probably solve your problem without a hardware change.
https://wiki.apache.org/httpd/php-fcgid

4n0nx

sman said: Apache Benchmark works pretty good.

Ahh you googled that. Does that make you a benchmark expert now? I don't think so son.