i have a shit load of image traffic, server question - GoFuckYourself.com

brand0n · 03-02-2008, 10:42 AM

okay, ive got a fuck load of image traffic..
at what point do i need to use more then 1 dedicated for it?

and whats the best way to handle it? apache opened up to max connections, or a custom script?

what kinda specs in a server would you recommend?

traffic is comming from all over, its a lot of google image traffic as well..

any help here. thx.

Dirty F · 03-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Uhm, you redirect it so your server load is minimal and you actually make money from it.

brand0n · 03-02-2008, 10:47 AM

no, i need the image to be displayed. the image is a clickable image in a lot of cases and i cant stop the ones that arent clickable vs the ones that are

so all images must be displayed. and im talking a lot of image traffic.

also battuss arent u on gfy break or no one would ban ya?

Dirty F · 03-02-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brand0n

no, i need the image to be displayed. the image is a clickable image in a lot of cases and i cant stop the ones that arent clickable vs the ones that are

so all images must be displayed. and im talking a lot of image traffic.

also battuss arent u on gfy break or no one would ban ya?

I'm waiting for someone to ban me.

kacy · 03-02-2008, 10:59 AM

Is your current server being overloaded now? Or are you just trying to plan for future growth? There are serveral options for adding servers your host should be able to tell what the options are, especially since they should already know what you have going on and what services are being ultized the most (mysql, etc).

sandman! · 03-02-2008, 11:24 AM

if its static content fuck apache use http://sysoev.ru/en/

zagi · 03-02-2008, 12:49 PM

Sandman is right.

Contact me on ICQ: 4930562 if you're interested in setting up 1 server with Reality Check Network. Since its all static images we'll be able to serve up to 1Gbit/sec from this server. With just 1 machine you wont have to worry about multi-server setups, we also have active monitoring so in case something does break we're on top of it within 1 minute.

Give it a thought and let me know if you'd be interested.

www.RealityCheckNetwork.com

Ron Bennett · 03-02-2008, 02:44 PM

The total size of the images is what's going to matter most, since most webserver software / browsers use pipelining these days so multiple images, etc can be sent on the same connection.

Check your server load level ... if the load (that is to say the number of requests waiting) is above 2, that may be an indication it's having trouble keeping up...

Sometimes increasing memory is all that's needed - the more that's cached in ram as opposed to being read off the HD, the faster requests will be...

On a related note, there are some logging features in both Linux (if running that OS) and Apache (and of most others) that frequently hit the HD - disabling some types of logging (when it's practical to do so) can help speed things up by reducing HD accesses.

All of the above is basically meaningless if your server connection to the internet is slow - however, if most of what you're serving is static images, then I'd wager your connection is likely fast enough for your needs, but something to verify *before* tinkering too much with the server itself.

Ron

sandman! · 03-02-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

The total size of the images is what's going to matter most, since most webserver software / browsers use pipelining these days so multiple images, etc can be sent on the same connection.

Check your server load level ... if the load (that is to say the number of requests waiting) is above 2, that may be an indication it's having trouble keeping up...

Sometimes increasing memory is all that's needed - the more that's cached in ram as opposed to being read off the HD, the faster requests will be...

On a related note, there are some logging features in both Linux (if running that OS) and Apache (and of most others) that frequently hit the HD - disabling some types of logging (when it's practical to do so) can help speed things up by reducing HD accesses.

All of the above is basically meaningless if your server connection to the internet is slow - however, if most of what you're serving is static images, then I'd wager your connection is likely fast enough for your needs, but something to verify *before* tinkering too much with the server itself.

Ron

LOL your funny.

brand0n · 03-02-2008, 04:03 PM

plz explain why hes funny

Iron Fist · 03-02-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandman!

LOL your funny.

sandman! · 03-02-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brand0n

plz explain why hes funny

because apache configured to run scripts well will allways suck for images i have pegged a p4 2.4 with 1 gig ram to 95mbs with a load of .1 and less then 300mb of ram used apache would have melted the server.

Everything he posted in true but has nothing to do with the thread the question was how to server images.

bashbug · 03-02-2008, 04:29 PM

Didnt google stop allowing you to break the frame of google image traffic?

Dirty F · 03-02-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bashbug

Didnt google stop allowing you to break the frame of google image traffic?

That made me check my image traffic. Still works fine.

Brenda, just wondering, if you don't mind, how much are you getting? It must be shitloads if you need a server (or more) just for that. You don't want to redirect it, then how are you gonna make money from it?

brand0n · 03-02-2008, 05:25 PM

brenda? lol cute

frank, trade secrets man.

im getting enuff to warrent a server or 2 to make sure they are there. and the way im going to monetize will defently support the costs of the servers + profit.. the juice is worth the squeeze

and its not just google traffic.. as its a ton of image traffic, google is picking it up and rolling with it as well.

03-02-2008, 10:42 AM	#1
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	i have a shit load of image traffic, server question okay, ive got a fuck load of image traffic.. at what point do i need to use more then 1 dedicated for it? and whats the best way to handle it? apache opened up to max connections, or a custom script? what kinda specs in a server would you recommend? traffic is comming from all over, its a lot of google image traffic as well.. any help here. thx. __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

03-02-2008, 10:47 AM	#3
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	no, i need the image to be displayed. the image is a clickable image in a lot of cases and i cant stop the ones that arent clickable vs the ones that are so all images must be displayed. and im talking a lot of image traffic. also battuss arent u on gfy break or no one would ban ya? __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

03-02-2008, 10:59 AM	#5
kacy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: So Cal Posts: 877	Is your current server being overloaded now? Or are you just trying to plan for future growth? There are serveral options for adding servers your host should be able to tell what the options are, especially since they should already know what you have going on and what services are being ultized the most (mysql, etc). __________________ ~Kacy

03-02-2008, 11:24 AM	#6
sandman! Icq: 14420613 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: chicago Posts: 15,432	if its static content fuck apache use http://sysoev.ru/en/ __________________ Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

03-02-2008, 12:49 PM	#7
zagi Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,238	Sandman is right. Contact me on ICQ: 4930562 if you're interested in setting up 1 server with Reality Check Network. Since its all static images we'll be able to serve up to 1Gbit/sec from this server. With just 1 machine you wont have to worry about multi-server setups, we also have active monitoring so in case something does break we're on top of it within 1 minute. Give it a thought and let me know if you'd be interested. www.RealityCheckNetwork.com __________________ Managed US/NL Hosting [ [Reality Check Network ] Dell XEON Servers + 1/2/3 TB Packages ICQ: 4-930-562

03-02-2008, 10:45 AM	#2
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Uhm, you redirect it so your server load is minimal and you actually make money from it.

03-02-2008, 02:44 PM	#8
Ron Bennett Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,653	The total size of the images is what's going to matter most, since most webserver software / browsers use pipelining these days so multiple images, etc can be sent on the same connection. Check your server load level ... if the load (that is to say the number of requests waiting) is above 2, that may be an indication it's having trouble keeping up... Sometimes increasing memory is all that's needed - the more that's cached in ram as opposed to being read off the HD, the faster requests will be... On a related note, there are some logging features in both Linux (if running that OS) and Apache (and of most others) that frequently hit the HD - disabling some types of logging (when it's practical to do so) can help speed things up by reducing HD accesses. All of the above is basically meaningless if your server connection to the internet is slow - however, if most of what you're serving is static images, then I'd wager your connection is likely fast enough for your needs, but something to verify before tinkering too much with the server itself. Ron __________________ Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales

03-02-2008, 04:03 PM	#10
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	plz explain why hes funny __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.

03-02-2008, 04:29 PM	#13
bashbug Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Boston Posts: 929	Didnt google stop allowing you to break the frame of google image traffic?

03-02-2008, 05:25 PM	#15
brand0n been very busy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: the queen city Posts: 26,983	brenda? lol cute frank, trade secrets man. im getting enuff to warrent a server or 2 to make sure they are there. and the way im going to monetize will defently support the costs of the servers + profit.. the juice is worth the squeeze and its not just google traffic.. as its a ton of image traffic, google is picking it up and rolling with it as well. __________________ want to buy this spot for cheap? it is of course for sale. long term deals are always the best bet. brand0n/ at/ a o l dot commies.