My team and I have build a site on Joomla (php,apache,mysql) , basically a publishing article site with no user interaction, and some JS modules.
The site is famous and at some peak times there are 2500-3500 requests accessing it, the site get very slow and look very bad on user experience. The upload target is not the issue.
I need some suggestions on HW requirements and technologies I can use like apache enhance, php modules or any proxy infrastructure.
Does anyone done a study ore an analyse on this topics, I can't find anything util searching on web and I'm all ears to hear any suggestion.
Thank you
We currently manage a few sites that are more or less similar. Here's the hardware from one of them:
16 GB RAM
500 GB Hard Disk (not SSD)
8 core processor
Note, however, that for high traffic websites we do modify the Joomla core, and we also switch the tables from InnoDB to MyISAM (regardless what others might think here, MyISAM is much faster than InnoDB ). We only use first level caching (we rarely use the "System - Cache" plugin).
Related
What log analysis and alerting systems are you using with Cloudflare, preferably PRO, not Enterprise, since Clouflare only retains 4 hours worth of Access log data?
I am thinking along the lines of Loggly, Splunk, Sumologic etc. I cannot seem to find anything that would work more or less out of the box ie some form of integration.
I am aware of Cloudflare's work with Google on their Enterprise plan.
Thanks.
I am building a UWP app that targets both x86, x64 and ARM platforms. I want to replace the current implementation that uses Azure for the backed (an App Service and an SQL Server) because of the high price and because my Pay-As-You-Go subscription does not allow me to set a spending limit.
I thought about using a local database but I don't know if that could be a solution since I want the user to be able to have his data synced on both PC and phone for example. I am also ok with renouncing the idea of a structured database in favor of structured files (like xml) if I can find a way to keep them somewhere in the cloud (and then I can read/write them from the client app - no need for App Service).
Are there any free, non-trial alternatives to Azure? Or should I look more into the file storage implementation? Thanks in advance.
Instead of Azure you could use another web hosting solution to publish you API. Azure also offers small free plans that might be sufficient.
An alternative would be to request access and store/sync data to user's OneDrive. Each logged in user with Microsoft Account should have OneDrive storage available so this is a good middle-ground, which is still free for you. A nice introduction to this can be found in this article.
UWP also offers RoamingFolder where you can store small files that are synced across the devices that you use. Unfortunately this is less reliable because you are not able to control when the sync happens and cannot resolve conflicts.
I have successfully migrated to another cloud platform: Heroku. In my opinion, at least for small apps, Heroku offers the best solution both technology-wise and price-wise.
I am now able to have a webservice hosted for free in the cloud, without worring about traffic and number of requests. Of course you can scale up if you want better performance, but you can start with a free plan. Also, I have a postgressql db hosted also in the cloud, also for free (up until 10 000 records, and it will be just 9$/month if I want to upgrade to 10 milion). One can never found an offer like this free on Azure.
I had to learn a bit of Node.js (there are a lot of languages Heroku supports for backend services, but .Net is not one of them) but it was totally worth it!
Another option that is now starting to gain more and more popularity is FireBase. I will certantly also check that out for my future apps.
I don't actually have any problem, just a bit curious of things.
I make a python web framework based on bottle (http://bottlepy.org/). Today I try to do a bit comparison to compare bottle WSGI server and apache server performance. I work on lubuntu 12.04, using apache 2, python 2.7, bottle development version (0.12) and get this surprising result:
As stated in the bottle documentation, the included WSGI Server is only intended for development purpose. The question is, why the development server is faster than the deployment one (apache)?
As far as I know, development server is usually slower, since it provide some "debugging" features.
Also, I never has any response in less than 100 ms when developing PHP application. But look, it is just 13 ms in bottle.
Can anybody please explain this? This is just doesn't make sense for me. A deployment server should be faster than the development one.
Development servers are not necessarily faster than production grade servers, so such an answer is a bit misleading.
The real reason in this case is likely going to be due to lazy loading of your web application on the first request that hits a process. Especially if you don't configure Apache correctly, you could hit this lazy loading quite a bit if your site doesn't get much traffic.
I would suggest you go watch my PyCon talk which deals with some of these issues.
http://lanyrd.com/2013/pycon/scdyzk/
Especially make sure you aren't using prefork MPM. Use mod_wsgi daemon mode in preference.
A deployment server should be faster than the development one.
True. And it generally is faster... in a "typical" web server environment. To test this, try spinning up 20 concurrent clients and have them make continuous requests to each version of your server. You see, you've only tested 1 request at a time--certainly not a typical web environment. I suspect you'll see different results (we're thinking of both latency AND throughput here) with tens or hundreds of concurrent requests per second.
To put it another way: At 10, 20, 100 requests per second, you might still see ~200ms latency from Apache, but you'd see much worse latency from Bottle's server.
Incidentally, the Bottle docs do refer to concurrency:
The built-in default server is based on wsgiref WSGIServer. This
non-threading HTTP server is perfectly fine for development and early
production, but may become a performance bottleneck when server load
increases.
It's also worth noting that Apache is doing a lot more than the Bottle reference server is (checking .htaccess files, dispatching to child process/thread, robust logging, etc.) and all those features necessarily add to request latency.
Finally, I'd ask whether you tuned the Apache installation. It's possible that you could configure it to be faster than it is now, e.g. by tuning the MPM, simplifying logging, disabling .htaccess checks.
Hope this helps. And if you do run a concurrent benchmark, please do share the results with us.
I am new to web developing, so my question might be silly.
I want to set up an Apache cluster. I have four hardware machines and I want to distribute http requests load between them. Now on every machine I have installed Fedora.
For now it can be simple load balance cluster without any recovery techniques (in case of some hardware error on some servers). And of course I need open source (free to commercial use) software.
Any suggestions on what soft/tutorials/books I should look to learn how to set up environment like this?
The O'Reilly book "Server Load Balancing" by Tony Bourke (now runs lbdigest.com) is the classic. Unfortunately it's a little dated. Maybe Tony will consider an update.
If you really want "no recovery techniques", basic DNS Round-robin might work for you but it's pretty crude. There's an open source project called Ultramonkey, but I haven't had a chance to mess with it. A lot of development has gone into commercial solutions which offer load balancing, high-availability, etc. Including the Coyote Point product (which I helped write). The appliance based products are actually quite affordable today.
We used to have a dedicated server (1&1) and very infrequently ran into problems with the server having issues.
Recently, we migrated to a VPS (Wiredtree.com) with similar specs to our old dedicated server, but notice frequent problems running out of memory, mysql having to restart, etc... both when knowingly running intensive scrips and also just randomly during normal use.
Because of this, we're considering migrating to another at VPS - this time at Slicehost to see if it performs better.
My question is two fold...
Are their straightforward ways we could stress test a VPS at Slicehost to see if the same issues occur without having to actually migrate everything over?
Also, is it possible that the issues we're facing aren't just because of the provider (Wiredtree) but just the difference between a dedicated box and VPS (despite having similar specs)?
The best way to stress test an environment is to put it under load. If this VPS is hosting a web application, use one of the many available web server benchmark tools: ab, httperf, Siege or http_load. You don't necessarily care that much about the statistics from the tool itself, but more that it puts a predictable load on the server so that you can tune Apache to handle it, or at least not crash and burn.
The one problem you have with testing against Slicehost is that you are at the mercy of the Internet and your bandwidth to Slicehost. You may not be able to put enough load on the server to reach a meaningful conclusion.
Instead, you might find it just as valuable to run one of the many virtualization products on the market and set up a VM with comparable specs to the VPS plan you're considering. Local testing over your LAN will allow you to put a higher and more predictable load on the server.
In either case, you don't need to migrate everything, but you will need to set up an environment for your application to run in, with representative data in your database.
A VPS with similar specs to a dedicated server should perform approximately the same, but in order to get good performance, you still need to tune Apache, MySQL and any other long-lived server processes. In my experience, the out-of-the-box configuration of Apache in many Linux distributions is not ideal and will allow far too many child processes, overcommitting memory and sending the server into a swap-death spiral.