Need to handle 40 million hits daily

12 years ago

Use a caching plugin if it's a WordPress site ...

Upload your images/files to Amazon S3 ... or, even better, host your whole site on Amazon: http://aws.amazon.com/web-hosting/

Thanks

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5678106].message }}

Christian Little

12 years ago

40 million daily hits?

You need a server cluster that has a good load balancer and some very powerful routers.

Or better still, if you are getting that much traffic then hire a systems administrator to deal with it for you. You are making money right?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

cPanel Shared and Reseller Web Hosting - 30 Day Free Trial Exclusive for Warriors!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5678945].message }}

peptone

12 years ago

This sounds like a great solution for you:

Originally Posted by Christian Little

40 million daily hits?

You need a server cluster that has a good load balancer and some very powerful routers.

Or better still, if you are getting that much traffic then hire a systems administrator to deal with it for you. You are making money right?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5680045].message }}

Nochek

12 years ago

40 million daily hits? Stick a single Adsense ad on it and buy an island.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nochek Solutions Presents:
The Hydrurga WSO - Rank Your Site #1 And Score Over The Penguin Updates!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5679088].message }}

zena lour 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Nochek

40 million daily hits? Stick a single Adsense ad on it and buy an island.

That's very nice

I like that answer

Zena
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5686143].message }}

Kom

12 years ago

Wow... How you did that ? Can I see Your site ?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5679110].message }}

aldemer

12 years ago

40M hits daily can give drive a tons of profit

Thanks

Signature

Cheap Domain Name Registration
Affordable Cpanel Web Hosting
Secure cloud Wordpress Hosting-Unlimited Bandwidth
SiteLock
Affordable Virtual Private Servers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5679930].message }}

cleanerupper

12 years ago

Wow, 40 million hits? I would imagine only a handful of sites get that kind of traffic. As mentioned above, look to outsource the work to a talented and experienced network administrator. You don't want any downtime on such a high traffic site.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5681472].message }}

patfl

12 years ago

Let's see...

1 Post: Check!
Huge Claim: Check!
Website Address under username: Check!

Yeah, no doubt...

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5681605].message }}

wizzard74 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Patrice Le Vexier

Let's see...

1 Post: Check!
Huge Claim: Check!
Website Address under username: Check!

Yeah, no doubt...

58 posts
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

You don't want to click here --> Richard Arblaster
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5696493].message }}
- mojojuju 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by wizzard74
  
  58 posts
  
  Wow, 58 posts in 3 days! It looks like skagenweb is on track to become our next Steve Wagenheim.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  :)
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5696726].message }}

Lovelogic

12 years ago

Hits are not the same as Page Views.

For example, if a webpage comprises:

1 HTML document;
2 stylesheets;
20 images and;
2 Javascript files;

then 25 hits will be added to the hit-count each time the homepage is viewed. Exit blocking and other popups further bump this figure up even when the browser blocks them from showing on screen.

The use of 'hits' to describe a websites popularity dates back to the early 1980's as a way of bigging up, making a site appear more popular than it actually was and rapidly fell from favour when the dot com bubble burst.

Ironically TV & movies perpetuates the use of the word in this context, suppose it sounds more impressive than page views or unique visitors and some people still fall for it. As WC Fields said: There's a sucker born every minute

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5685335].message }}

mojojuju

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Lovelogic

The use of 'hits' to describe a websites popularity dates back to the early 1980's as a way of bigging up, making a site appear more popular than it actually was and rapidly fell from favour when the dot com bubble burst.

I remember those days. Web sites were distributed on VHS tapes back then.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

:)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5685992].message }}

Lovelogic

12 years ago

Originally Posted by mojojuju

I remember those days. Web sites were distributed on VHS tapes back then.

... and animated GIF images were considered to be cutting edge awsomeness for web design :p

Of course it's a source of both elation and fear for any webmaster when they realise that their site is rapidly outgrowing regular shared hosting. Caching of frequent requests (both at the server & client side) certainly helps but so does taking a critical eye to scripts and images. By now all your javascript should of been mimified with not a PNG image to be found anywhere.

As Freehugs hints at, do not underestimate the usefulness of Google and in particular the App Egnine. The resources available even under a the Free quota limit put many 'professional' web hosts to shame. People often think of the app-engine as a backend workhorse unseen by visitors but they are in fact more than capable or serving up HTML, custom JS files and images.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5686600].message }}

Nochek

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Lovelogic

By now all your javascript should of been mimified with not a PNG image to be found anywhere.

As Freehugs hints at, do not underestimate the usefulness of Google and in particular the App Egnine. The resources available even under a the Free quota limit put many 'professional' web hosts to shame. People often think of the app-engine as a backend workhorse unseen by visitors but they are in fact more than capable or serving up HTML, custom JS files and images.

Don't forget Amazon's S3 if you are serving non-dynamic websites. I have recently started using S3 for all my video hosting and love the price to speed ratio they are serving up.

Also, PNG's aren't all bad. Using a transparent background and a sprite sheet, you can have all 20 images on your website downloaded as one larger file (one http request is always faster than 20, because your connection will only grab 3 image files at a time) and then it is cached for cutting on the clients side.

Using 1 CSS file is also a best practice. With gzip compression (You Are Compressing, Right?) you can turn a 40k file down to 5k or so, and so your 2 CSS file requests will actually take longer than one single one (since page requests happen in synched order, not 3 at a time like images).

Also, if you really want to do it right, cut out your smaller images and sprite table and replace them with Data URI's and stick them in your CSS file as well. It will reduce the amount of HTTP requests on page load, thus enhancing performance, CSS files can be cached, and CSS files can be gzipped. There are negatives and positives to this approach, and should only be used in certain instances, but your load times (especially for Mobile devices) can be reduced to absolutely nothing using these techniques.

Thanks

Signature

Nochek Solutions Presents:
The Hydrurga WSO - Rank Your Site #1 And Score Over The Penguin Updates!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5694822].message }}

SEOLee

12 years ago

Woh you must be paying a ton on traffic then!

Thanks

Signature

Buy High Pr Backlinks Guaranteed Higher Rankings On 5 Keywords For $60 Or Money Back!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5685497].message }}

freehugs

12 years ago

LOL, you must just now be facing scaling problems since $7 godaddy shared hosting can only handle 35M views a day.

For real though, if it's a write once, read many situation -- just compile the content portion of the site to HTML and let nginx serve the raw HTML documents. Use google to host any JS libraries you use, and compile the css and any custom JS (anything google doesn't host for free) inline with the document so you're only serving one file per request. You don't even need a huge server. Depending on document size, you could serve well over 1500 requests/s on the smallest linode. (86,400s / day) * (1,000 requests / s) = 86.4M requests / day. POW, you just got scaled!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5685552].message }}

codingideas

12 years ago

Originally Posted by freehugs

LOL, you must just now be facing scaling problems since $7 godaddy shared hosting can only handle 35M views a day.

For real though, if it's a write once, read many situation -- just compile the content portion of the site to HTML and let nginx serve the raw HTML documents. Use google to host any JS libraries you use, and compile the css and any custom JS (anything google doesn't host for free) inline with the document so you're only serving one file per request. You don't even need a huge server. Depending on document size, you could serve well over 1500 requests/s on the smallest linode. (86,400s / day) * (1,000 requests / s) = 86.4M requests / day. POW, you just got scaled!

I love your answer.

Also you could figure out whats slowing down your database by looking at your slow queries log.. if that's a issue. depending on how it's key'd -- etc, we don't know the platform it's built in or any information really.

I would help you for free.. if you want. I can logon to your pc via team viewer and take a look if you want.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5691982].message }}

xixilee

12 years ago

My site was starting to get to the point where performance was suffering a little bit. I put memcached on some of my more "complicated" pages and it worked better than I could imagine. I had some pages that took .5 seconds to parse and one that took 3 seconds to parse (shame on me, i know). I spent less than an hour putting memcached in a couple of these key places and everything now parses in less than .01 seconds. Also, I've noticed my load average is down a bunch too as there aren't as many mysql queries to handle. I couldn't recommend memcached more

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5685834].message }}

automaton

12 years ago

You can check out load balancing...good luck monetizing that traffic!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5692115].message }}

goosefrabah

12 years ago

Similar to the responses above.

Utilize amazon s3 or rackspaces file hostage, load balance if possible, memcache everything you can. If you can get anything on the cloud that would be great, maybe the load balancer split between your main and second server. The cloud is great as it can be ramped up to an amazing server and down to a minimal one really fast.