Is there a way to monitor bandwidth usage by asset or URL in Sanity? Currently Sanity does not specify which pages or sources the bandwidth usage is coming from, they just give the total GB amount.
Thank you!
Related
I have a python application writing pubsub msg into Bigquery. The python code use the google-cloud-bigquery library and the TableData.insertAll() method quota is 10,000 requests per second per table.Quotas documentation.
Cloud Run container auto scaling is set to 100 with 1000 requests per container.So technically, I should be able to reach 10 000 requests/sec right? With the BQ insert API being the biggest bottleneck.
I only have a few 100 requests per sec at the moment, with multiple service running at the same time.
CPU and RAM at 50%.
Now confirming your project structure, and a few details given in the comments; I would then review the Pub/Sub quotas and limits, especially the Quota and the Resource limits, both tables where you can check this information depending on the size and the Throughput quota units sections tells you how to calculate quota usage.
I would answer your question as a yes, you are able to reach 10,000 req/sec. And as in this question depending on the byte size you can have 10,000 row inserts unless the recommendation is 500.
The concurrency in Cloud Run can be modified in case you need to change it.
I have a Docker image that is running as a Fargate task. I am curious to know how AWS bills for the use of it. Currently I have a hard limit of 1GB and a soft limit of 512MB. If I bump the hard limit up to 2GB to avoid memory issue in certain cases, will I be charged for 2GB all the time or only the period that the container needs it? For most of time my application does not even need 512MB but occasionally it needs 2GB.
Visit here for pricing details
https://aws.amazon.com/fargate/pricing/
The lowest vCPU is 0.25 which provides memory upto 2 GB and is charged based on the CPU utilized.
I am trying to get a feel for the costs imposed by running apache on AWS continually. Assuming that the service is scarcely used, does anyone know how many cpu hours that would eat up in a month just by sitting there and running? I understand that this is slightly impractical but I am trying to figure out what the cost of entry is to deploy an application on this platform (as compared to GAE). I suspect it to be small but I would like to know.
Amazon charges for EC2 instances by uptime, not CPU time. The cheapest Linux instance type costs 8.5c / hour, or about $37 / month. You can reduce this by either signing up for a reserved instance that you plan to run for an extended period, or by using a spot priced instance where you bid the price you're prepared to pay.
You will also incur bandwidth charges for data transfer in and out of the EC2 network, and storage charges if you store any data permanently on AWS. These should be small compared with the cost of running the instance.
You can always have an estimates here:
http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/calc5.html
How can programmatically monitor the bandwidth of an object in AWS S3 service? I would like to do this to prevent excessive bandwidth usage by clients who are using our services and costing us more than we can afford. We like to limit 1TB bandwidth for each object.
The detailed usage reports are just per bucket, not per object.
What you could do is enable logging and parse the logs once an hour or so. It's certainly not instant, but it would prevent people from going way over your usage limits.
Also, s3stat is a good option up to a point. Once you start doing more than ~ 50 million requests per month, they have trouble crunching the data.
I have a website that attracts about 30,000 visitors per month. It has a lot of photos and PDF files which eat up a good deal of bandwidth. It's hosted by site5.com, which offers unlimited bandwidth & storage for ~$5 per month. According to site5's statistics, my site has about 20 GB of downloads per day, but I've seen it as high as 116 GB. Uploads range from 5-15 GB daily. (Though, I don't really upload things everyday, so I don't know where they get those numbers from.)
In anticipation of growing my site even more, perhaps by hosting videos, high-res photos, etc., I was looking into other storage options, even though site5 has been pretty good. Specifically, amazon.com's Simple Storage Service (S3) looks pretty good and is supposed to be a "highly scalable, reliable, fast, inexpensive data storage infrastructure."
Using Amazon's Simple Monthly Calculator, I multiplied out my worst-case scenario numbers:
Storage: 2 GB
Data Transfer-in: 15 GB/day * 31 days = 465 GB/month
Data Transfer-out: 116 GB/day * 31 days = 3596 GB/month
With those numbers alone, the calculator estimates my monthly bill to be a whopping $658.27!!! That's insane! Is anyone here using S3? Are your bills outrageous?
Wow, are you sure about those stats? I suppose that's possible, but you're lucky that your host hasn't given you the boot. Leasing a dedicated server will typically get you somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5TB/month for at least 20 times what you are paying now. If you're doing 3.5TB for $5 per month and your host isn't complaining, don't even think about moving.
(note: most unlimited plans are indeed limited by the company's terms of service, which usually allows them to give anyone the boot for using "too many" resources.)
I would try to find some way to verify your stats before you continue.
$5/3500GB is $0.0014 per gig. That's insane.
3.6TB/month is kind of a lot. Just as a sanity-check, my internet connection seems to deliver somewhere around 100kB/sec reception if I'm lucky (I assume the send/receive rat are about the same). At that bandwidth limit it would take my computer 417 days sending continuously to deliver that amount of data.
10c per gigabyte seems pretty reasonable to me. NearlyFreeSpeech.net charges $1/gigabyte delivered but that decreases to 20c/gigabyte at high volumes. Mosso charges 22c/GB delivered.
If you are paying $5 for unlimited transfer and storage I would stick with your current provider as they are offering something that no-one else is going to be able to offer you for that price.
S3 is also a content distribution network, it has certain uptime guarantees, data storage guarantees, your host probably does not. When Amazon says they can deliver your 116 GB a day they really mean it, whereas your host is probably overselling their capacity and hoping people don't really use their unlimited transfer.
You are getting a steal in terms of what you use. Good luck finding that elsewhere.