|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In bed asleep
Posts: 803
|
Is this server powerful enough for hosting TGPs?
I have a 1x Intel Dual Core Xeon 3050 with 4GB DDR2 server that I'm using to load the thumbs for several TGPs. TGP traffic is about 120k a day and bandwidth is usually 22-25Mbps. At peak traffic times the thumbs can take 3 or 4 seconds before they start loading or they just load in slow.
Can anyone tell me if the server is not powerful enough for the job? Or maybe it just needs some tweaking to get better performance for loading small files. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Little Vienna
Posts: 32,235
|
It will work fine,but you will need to optimize it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,723
|
Quote:
This is PLENTY powerful for this task. If you have any specific questions on tuning/setup, please feel free to ICQ me. EDIT: For small files, I recommend using ReiserFS and a raid scheme to improve total IOPS of diskperformance. You could also consider mounting the memory as a ramdisk, depending on the total amount of thumbs being served. Lots of good tweaking options here! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In bed asleep
Posts: 803
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Coupon Guru
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,973
|
First of all, what OS are you running on the server?
__________________
Webmaster Coupons Coupons and discounts for hosting, domains, SSL Certs, and more! AmeriNOC Coupons | Certified Hosting Coupons | Hosting Coupons | Domain Name Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Little Vienna
Posts: 32,235
|
I can give you tips over icq if you want.In exchange you can force some traffic from your sites(we already trade but i could use some more trades and traffic)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,781
|
Try using nginx instead of apache.. and cache your thumbs in memory instead of serving them from disk
__________________
I don't endorse a god damn thing......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,745
|
Near the top of your Apace config file you'll find about 40 LoadModule directives.
Those load up various modules so you can do all kinds of nifty things with Apache. mod_speling, for example, automatically fixed typos in URLs. Most of those modules are things you'll never use in your life, and all of them make the server slower. If this server is serving only thumbs, not running the PHP, probably 38 of those 40 modules can be commented out and the server will be MUCH faster - up to the point where your network connection is the bottleneck. The top 2 to comment out if you aren't using them are mod_php and mod_perl. Both are big, powerful modules and by being big they slow things down. There are several other configuration directives to tweak too. The initial idea for nginx looked promising, but I'm not at all impressed with it. The idea was to make a very small, fast web server, making it fast by leaving out 96% of the features that a Apache has. Well, people wanted more features, of course, so they were added, and now nginx doesn't perform any better than Apache does if you simply don't load unneeded modules. nginx and a bare Apache are extremely similar, but with Apache when you need to add a feature later you simply uncomment the relevant module. With nginx, the feature simply isn't available, period. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
So Fucking Banned
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Shenzhen
Posts: 790
|
depends how much traffic you're going to get
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Icq: 14420613
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: chicago
Posts: 15,432
|
i disagree i know many people that have gone from a striped down apache to nginx for static content apache will never in a million years match nginx for static content.
This is assuming you know how to setup nginx properly. Quote:
__________________
Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 363
|
ditto, for static nginx will stomp apache.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,986
|
Thats a piece of cake for a server like that. Sounds like you have a config problem.
|
|
|
|