We are a web-based Yacht Charter company, with offices scattered around the world:
www.boatbookings.com
Currently, both our web site and our back-office business management system are hosted on a single server in the UK, with an automatic fail-over to a server in Dallas, TX, USA.
The problem we are having is that our sales office in Singapore is having really slow response times and this is very frustrating for them.
Using an application called "JustPing" we see that response times From Singapore are much slower than other parts of the world. (the cities closer to London are fastest, the ones further away are slowest)
JustPing Results
Is there anyway to improve this or is hosting our applications on multiple servers the only way to improve performance. What's the best cost-effective method of multiple server hosting?
(Incidentally, if I JutPing Google, response times are fantastic worldwide, but we know they're hosted on many, very large servers)
Am new and have done the usual forum search but did not find what i (specifially) want.
Looking for a good (shared) hosting company with the ability to run both ASP.NET and PHP sites (if possible). The hosting should be fast and accessible in US, Europe and China.
Thus far, i have been able to find a few shared hosting companies with a bit of speed, but they will not provide both ASP.NET and PHP
Is my combination hard to find and will i need to just seperate and find 2 hosting companies, one for .NET and one for PHP?
I need to provide an 8gb file download (split into 1gb parts) that will be downloaded by 80+ people worldwide, simultaneously. I'm talking for example, they will be each downloading at 1.2megabytes per second each (this is the average speed of their home connections), simultaneously. What are the specs or things I should be looking out for in a website hosting provider? One service I'm looking at is advertised as 0.5Mbps in bandwidth and 100Mbps in transit, for £40 a month. The service I'm looking at is sensical.net's colo business service (http://www.sensical.net/). What does this mean and is it fast enough? What is the difference between these two figures - 0.5Mbps bandwidth and 100Mbps transit?
I'm currently looking for another affiliate network other then motive interactive. I'm trying to find more advertisements for other areas in the world. I love motive interactive so far but it's focus is mainly on US. I have a few ads that I'm using for AUS, UK and Canada but what about the rest of the world.
I'm doing a bit of research JFMI and I was wondeering if anyone had an idea as to what is the total number of domains that are hosted in the world. If the total number of domains registered is now 183 million +, what percentage of those domains are actually hosted?.
I am using dreamhost host 3 of my web sites and 1 blog. Dreamhost is great, offers alot space and bandwidth.
but I think they are oversellling their space, sometimes it gets really slow. (overselling ? ok, I dont really know, but sometimes its really slow, and most my asian readers said need to refresh to load the page. I am wondering if theres a way to check if they are overselling or not.)
I am thinking about buying vps, even tho, I still got 5 month left with dreamhost.
I found 2 vps companies are highly recommanded on this forum, JaguarPC and LiquidWeb.
theres already a post compared both companies in terms of price and service. I say I will pick JagarPc, cuz, its basic plan just 20 USD, and htey got promotion now, its even cheaper. and basic Liquidweb vps plan is 60 bucks.
I am wondering why Jagarpc is so cheap , are they overselling? how can we check if they are overselling.
I found a few posts saying how good jaguarPc is. and they are not overselling, but those members just signed up this month, and only have 1-3 posts. I cannot really trust those new members.
Can someone share their experience with JaguarPC? compare JaguarPc performance and liquidweb performance. antoher question is switch from dreamhost to JaguarPC basic vPS plan, will performance gets better?
last question: VPS account allows 3 IP, 3ip = 3 domains? if not, how many domains can I have?
We are getting into VPS hosting and wanted to get some opinions and feedback as we're quite unsure on what to expect as for performance and how many clients we can generally keep on a box.
For now we've bought 3 dell R710 with dual Xeon L5520, 72GB ram and 8 x 2.5" SAS drives.
We are thinking of a base offering of 512 megabytes of ram and was hoping to get about 40-50 onto a server.
With 40 there should be -plenty- free ram and plenty drivecache.
Then a next offering of 1 gig ram and next one of 2 gigs.
Even if we do the biggest 2 gig offering with 25 on a server we should have free ram to spare.
The software would be virtuozzo.
Any thoughts on this, am I expecting too much, or am I being fairly realistic?
Hi"Optimization of computing resources has long been an important management issue. One of its aspects concerns server scalability and the question of whether an organization should scale-up or scale out.Assume that the computing performance of the servers can be measured by variable 0 <=p, that their total cost is given by "c" and the relationship between server performance and cost is defined by c=αp^β"
a. What is the cost-performance elasticity(ђ), precisely?
b. What would be the range of values for ђ that would be expected by moore's law and what are its implications?
c. What would be the range of values for ђ that would lead managers to scale-out? Draw a graph and throughly explain the implications.
I was just playing around with litespeed and I thought I would switch back to apache for a few min to see how the server reacts. The load with litespeed was 1.00 - 3.00. I switched to apache the load jumped to 28.00 - 35.00. Its amazing how litespeed is handling connections.
Is there a site which will enable me to enter url of my website and it will simulate visitors from multiple locations. It needs to open the page completely, and run for example 10 minutes. Two things I found are host-tracker, but it just gets headers from multiple locations, and does it only once. Another thing is Paessler software which can test exactly what I want (number of visitors for some period of time with full page download) but it must be run from one (my) PC, so I can not test bandwidth from multiple locations. I need combination of these two, anyone knows for something like that on the net?
My dedicated server is sometimes sluggishly slow. I would like to get a grasp of its performance during a day, to get a better understanding of what's going on.
Therefore I am looking for a server performance monitoring service. All service I found so far were simply monitoring uptime (server is down / server is up). I need something more - a service that checks every 30 seconds or so the loading time of the main page.
Then it would allow me to download the data in CSV or draw a response time graph.
I've recently found (last 6 weeks) that the performance of my client's websites on my trusted host's servers isn't how it used to be and/or how it should be. The download seems to take way much longer than before. So far it hasn't resulted in a significant drop in average pageviews per unique visitor but it might do if things continue. The host claims a number of attacks on the mailserver and an unusually high load at one point in time. Above all it's just annoying - isn't reliable server performance what can be expected from a reputable host?
Here's the question: what's the best way of monitoring online how the web and mail servers are performing so that I can take this report to my host and urge them to take (more) action? Ideally I'd like to compare this with a seperate web server that I use for another client. I don't mind spending a little bit of money but high subscription fees are not in my budget.
[mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock # Default to using old password format for compatibility with mysql 3.x # clients (those using the mysqlclient10 compatibility package). old_passwords=1
Now-a-days server is having too much load due to http and in access logs we see following message : ======================================== 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:02 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 - 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:03 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 - 127.0.0.1 - - [11/Oct/2008:01:40:02 -0700] "OPTIONS * HTTP/1.0" 200 -=============================================
And due to this there is load on server. We are not able to understand why this is happening and how to stop this. So please suggest with some solution.
I have LAMP -server running and I was wondering how to test it's performance. So is there any good tools for that? I'm interest how many http queries my server could handle etc.
I am working on a busy and popular website which has a large amount of database activity - and requires hourly backups of all database data.
At the moment the site is hosted on two servers - one for the front end web server, one for the database.
Both servers are running a RAID HDD system which allows quick swaps of faulty HDDs without data loss. An hourly full backup of database tables is running which is killing the server when it runs.
ISP has suggested installing a third server to run as a slave to the existing DB server, and hence always hold a duplicated of the live database.
I have a feeling however that this is basically just like having RAID mirroring, but on a different machine - so to solve the problem of a potential dodgy SQL statement wiping out ALL copies of the live database, we'd STILL need hourly backups to run, and hence would still see the major system speed drop each hour at the time of backup.
I am currently hosting my website on one server with the specs:
2.8ghz Dual Quad-Core processor + 8 gigs of ram + two 500 hard drives with a 50 mbps unmetered bandwidth package.
My current problem lies in high server loads and very slow server performance throughout the day.
I am considering migrating over to The Planet onto server with the specs:
3.0ghz Dual Quad-Core + 18 gigs of ram + two 50gb hard drives with 2TB of monthly bandwidth transfer.
In an attempt to have great bandwidth pricing and server performance, I plan on downgrading my current server with my current host to a lowe-end server and keeping it only to host my VIDEO and MUSIC files with the 50mbps unmetered package. The Planet will then host my database and all other web related files on their new server.
Is this a good idea as an attempt to save money in bandwidth costs and eliminating my server lag issues?
I was offered a setup of a separate web and database server at my current host but from what I have read, no one touches the performance and reliability The Planet has to offer.
I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server where there's a performance issue with some of the .asp pages that retrieve data from Access databases, (I know Access databases aren't ideal for data). These pages will just get stuck/freeze, and then either suddenly spring back to life, or give a script timeout error 0113.
The largest Access database I've seen is 136MB (is that way too large?)
I will probably move some of the large Access databases onto a different server but before I do:
- Are there any tools you can recommend to diagnose exactly what files / databases are causing the problem. I don't think the Win 2000 performance monitor tools even work.
- Can anyone explain more about the technicalities behind this issue. I expect it has something to do with processes, threads, memory, Access drivers being loaded into memory etc etc. Can anyone tell me what they know to put me in the picture better?
I have centos -7 and apache 2.4.6. I have made one small php scripts and measuring the performance of server.
Average time is around 15 ms for per request. But when adding concurrent requests the average time increase too much high for the request see the below output
ab -n 10000 http://127.0.0.1/1.php
Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 0.0 0 0 Processing: 14 17 2.6 15 35 Waiting: 0 1 0.2 1 10 Total: 14 17 2.6 15 35
With Concurrent connections
ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://127.0.0.1/1.php See the processing the mean request time its around 150 ms.
Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 1.1 0 5 Processing: 25 150 24.7 153 213 Waiting: 2 134 25.2 138 194 Total: 29 150 24.1 153 216
ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://127.0.0.1/1.php See the processing the mean request time its around 150 ms when total request is 1000 only.
Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 0 1.1 0 5 Processing: 25 150 24.7 153 213 Waiting: 2 134 25.2 138 194 Total: 29 150 24.1 153 216
How to configure the Apache so the request time decreas to low ms ???
In Centos -7 Default configuration of MPM Directory also not found ??? checked in httpd.conf and other file also.
it took me one year to develop the disk cache tool which can dramatically boost your host and save your harddisk. it is like supercache,but more cheap and better speed.
check picture to see what it can do.
i will offer free download to test the tool by first 10 people. if u host huge traffic website, do not hesitate to try it. i already test it for half a year. it is time to publish it. pm me or post here to get free download.
Is there a website/tool/software I can use for testing my web server performance?. I need a server based solution because I don't have enough bandwith to run it from my pc.
We run a very busy web application written in .net . The backend is SQL 2005. The server running SQL for this web app is slammed constantly. CPU is red lined, and the disks are queuing up because they cant keep up with the demand. What I am wondering is what do the big websites do to gain performance? What direction should we start moving in to get ahead of the curve. We are using an HP DL 580 with 4 x quad core xeons and the fastest SAS drives we could get.
Does anyone have experience using LVM2? We'd rely on hardware RAID mirroring for the underlying physical redundancy, but we're very interested in LVM2's storage virtualization features.
If anyone can share their experiences with LVM2 with regards to performance and possibly use in a SAN environment,
Let's say I've got a single website built in Drupal (using PHP and MySQL). It gets less than a 1,000 visits per day and needs very little storage or bandwidth. The site is currently on a shared host and it runs okay, but often has very slow page loads due to sluggish MySQL calls and other traffic on the server. Sometimes the homepage loads in 2s but other times it takes 20-30s depending on time of day. The client is sick of this performance on such a low traffic site and wants to improve the situation.
Question: Will a VPS really provide that much better performance than a shared host?
Remember I'm talking ONLY about page load time under minimal load. No need to take into account scaling or Digg/Slashdot effects.
I know dedicated is the best option but it seems crazy for such a low traffic site. A lot of the VPS offers are very attractive in theory (managed and affordable) but in practice I'm concerned that even a 512MB VPS with 1GB burst won't make much of a performance difference.
Mainly I don't want to go to the hassle and extra monthly expense of moving everything to a VPS for only a minimal gain.
