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.
Comments
hosted where?
How many concurrent connections though? And what is the online set timeout at? If it's like 15 or 30/60 minutes, that would show SMF eating away. But, if you got a good amount of concurrent users with 150+ online and let's say 15minute online timeout, that is pretty decent actually
Isn't "concurrent users" usage a little bit useless? I mean even if you have 50 users what are the chances they're gonna click on a link (aka query the db) at the same time within the same teeny tiny execution timeframe of the query?
Well, what I thought concurrent meant, was users simultaneously refreshing at the same time so the chance of 150 or 50 concurrent is roughly 99.9%?
It might mean something else, I apologize
BuyVM.
I think my online timeout is set to 15 minutes, but here's some netstat output, counted up nicely...
root@s1:~# netstat -anp | grep :80 | awk '{print $5}' | cut -d":" -f1 | sort -u | wc -l 76It's not peak usage time right now, but I'll also try to get some stats during that time.
Try going to a forum, or anyplace else built like them, when mysql is down and see what happens.
If you are looking for ultra scaleable VPS, go to http://solarvm.com
We have hourly billing and if you expect more traffic on a certain day, you can just upgrade your instance without a reboot.
Thanks so much for the feedback, everyone. Very helpful.
@NickM - that's especially good to know -- if a 512MB could get me anywhere near 400, much less 150, that sounds like more than enough.
@Nick_A - I didn't want to mention providers at first but I'm basically deciding between BuyVM offloaded and you local, so I'll just ask you: do you think there'd be any noticeable performance difference between SSD and SSD-Cached? The site's using less than 500MB on shared hosting so I know it could fit in 10GB, but the extra space would still be nice to have.
Nope, about the only time a performance difference even comes up is during a benchmark
You can always switch between our two OpenVZ options quickly (and typically without a reboot) if you find you need one over the other.
Regarding pure SSD vs SSD caching, you probably won't see a huge difference between them, since a lot of stuff will stay in RAM. Database query results, entire PHP files (especially if you're using an opcode cache), even static files, if served up often enough, should stay in memory.
@Dylan: KISS (keep it simple stupid)
IMHO, keeping it simple in this case is "all in one" setup and as @pubcrawler said, then see if you need to "grow into" the more complex/offloaded setup (or other configuration). You'll have enough to keep you busy just migrating from the shared host to the VPS anyway and this doesn't sound like a large setup anyway.
A decent VPS should be > than shared hosting (performance-wise, and configuration-wise too, i.e., PHP memory limits you can use etc)
Also, the all in one setup keeps your options open if you have to drop a provider and move on -- and, in my experience, this is important too. (You would only have to look for another VPS, instead of having to look for another VPS with offloaded MySQL or figure out how to migrate the offloaded setup to an all in one, especially if you have to drop a provider in a hurry)
Sometimes portability of your configuration > all out performance by some specialized setup.
IMHO you get FAR more "bang for the buck" in then duplicating your all in one setup on another cheap VPS and implementing a low cost load balancing/failover setup as your needs grow.