__/ [Brian Wakem] on Friday 23 December 2005 10:46 \__
> telicalbook wrote:
>> I was told by people who run traffic exchanges (thus having
>> a vested interest in a positive answer) that an average
>> web server can take several hundreds of simultaneous hits a minute.
It depends on the type of hits. A small static page? A huge page that is
generated on the fly? A 1MB PNG screenshot? All of these are hits and
different sites deliver content whose nature is different. Averaging over
many sites of a different type/class would probably lead to this figure.
Then you must worry about available bandwidth and hardware, which I believe
were taken into consideration.
>> Is this true? Is a good $10 a month account able to use such
>> things as automatic traffic exchanges and not slow down the
>> load time from people who are coming from search engines?
It depends how many sites get 'crummed' into the same server. It's not just
the number, but also the volume of hits that each site gets. Sites usually
grow and so does the computational demand. CMS-based sites will probably hog
more resources than old-generation-type sites that use WYSIWYG or text
editors to create content off-line.
> A well powered dedicated server will be able to serve many thousands of
> pages a minute. Ours can serve 300,000 a minute at peak load.
Server or serverS? A framework of servers?
> What you get for $10/month though may be entirely different. In the
> early days of our business we got kicked off a £50/month shared server
> for using almost every CPU cycle on the machine, and we weren't getting
> anywhere near the amount of traffic we do now. But it depends what your
> visitors are doing, a large percentage of our users are doing CPU
> intensive stuff.
to self: what's that site Brian's running...?
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Y |-(1^2)|^(1/2)+1 K
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:55pm up 12 days 21:06, 7 users, load average: 0.39, 0.39, 0.44
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
