Forum Moderators: phranque
I've got a site that gets several times more traffic a month than this site, and it's plugging away with a host that's about $10 a month. So I don't get it.
I know that sometimes a script or something can hog resources, but apparently the host said that the site was getting so much traffic that it warranted a dedicated server—no mention of scripts or resources. I can't believe that 100,000 page views a month is that much traffic. (And there aren't a lot of large files to download on the site, not as far as I can see.) But I don't know enough about what warrants a dedicated server, so what do I know?
I have no intention of saying anything if it's going to offend or come off as "meddling" (or worse still—jealous!). But I just have to know . . . is this plausable?
You may have a more accommodating or better-managed host than does your friend. Your pages may also be simpler, with a smaller total "size" and less CPU drain. And his host might have nothing between "shared" and "dedicated", so sites "too big" for "shared" have no other option but "dedicated". A VPS ("virtual private server") account (with a different host) might be a better fit to your friend's needs.
See what you can find out about the regularity of the traffic, the monthly (or daily) average file calls (not just pages, but files), the monthly (or daily) average "visitors" or "sessions", and average size of the daily log files (specifying whether you're referring to compressed or not). This might help folks express more informed opinions.
Thank you.
Eliz.
You may have a more accommodating or better-managed host than does your friend.
I will try to gently pry and get more information, but I don't think I'll get too much (without looking nosy!). ;) And I had a feeling that the answer to this question might be "it depends." But just knowing what I do about the site, and the amount of traffic I'm almost certain it gets, I have serious doubts that it really needs a dedicated server. Maybe a host with different (better) plans, but a dedicated server seems like overkill.
Also, I'm not sure of this, but since the site has international appeal, I suspect that there is no one time when there's a huge traffic spike. (But of course I don't know!) The site is fairly graphics-intensive, but then again, so is mine.
Interestingly, the host isn't going to sell the dedicated server space (I got confused and originally thought that). The site would have to be moved to a new host. Which I suppose is better news—it means that the current host isn't trying to rip anyone off.
For instance, a php site might use vastly more cpu power than a plain html site.
For instance, a celebs site with lots of pictures will use vastly more bandwidth than a boring tech-site with no pictures.
And then, of course, some people haven't the faintest idea how to reduce image size/quality to sensible values.
Kaled.
kaled said: Page-hits count for nothing... its bandwidth and cpu usage that count.
kaled said: And then, of course, some people haven't the faintest idea how to reduce image size/quality to sensible values.
Eliz.
I think that most of the site is plain HTML. A few of the pages are probably php. I'll have to go look again and make sure. Certainly, there's nothing on most of the pages which require php. Just text and images.
They don't have many dynamic features—no message board, nothing else that's interactive (other than a feedback form and guestbook, and I think some of these things are "farmed out" offsite).
I'm going probably keep my mouth shut, or only make the most discreet of queries to the webmaster/site owner, simply because I don't have enough information . . . but I do have suspicions.
The site uses one of those "online builders." The author doesn't use web design software—I'm not sure why, but perhaps because it's too difficult for them. There's got to be some reason—I can't believe that anyone would choose to use it if they had a good grasp of WYSIWYG software or knew how to code a site. The site design suffers because of the online site builder. There's this javascript menu that is not dial-up-friendly. And OH YES, oh my gosh—the graphics are certainly not optimized! Huge files squished down into little thumbnail images.
Knowing the nature of the site, I doubt that traffic spikes are an issue. (I can't be sure of this, but I really doubt it.)
They use some image gallery software (I think it's one of the ones that comes with Fantastico). Perhaps that's doing it? Even so, it's hard to believe that the traffic or bandwidth is enough to warrant a dedicated server. I've seen so many entertainment-based sites (run by average folks, poor college kids, etc.) which have more advanced features than I see on this site (and cover more popular subjects), and I seriously doubt that each one of them can afford a dedicated server.
If the site is really that popular, it's great news as far as I'm concerned. Despite the clunky site design, it's got a lot of great information and the webmaster seems very dedicated. But I get this gut feeling that they might end up playing $$$ for a dedicated server when it might ordinarily be unneccessary.
I tend to think that it's more like the site is "too big" for the host's ungenerous allowances in bandwidth/diskspace (as stapel pointed out).
the site is "too big" for the host's ungenerous allowances in bandwidth/diskspace
Perhaps that is the case, and if so, your friend may be able to look for another shared hosting account or a VPS account.
It's not my money, so it shouldn't matter to me either way . . . but if they were to pay the going rate for dedicated hosting, it would be so expensive. I hate seeing that sort of thing happen when it's not needed.
No. Which makes it sound like the host isn't trying to rip them off.
I think the host must be a small reseller.
Before moving to big daddy's cated server, try VPS first. What is VPS? A poor man's dedicated server, also known as VDS (Virtual Dedicated Server).
Anyway, if hosted at a good hosting company, 100,000 page views per month does not warrant for a VPS or dedicated server. Shared hosting is good enough.
Thanks everyone for your input. I went ahead and suggested to the webmaster that a dedicated server might be overkill—citing that other popular sites don't need to go that route. I wasn't trying to imply to the webmaster that this site wasn't popular, only that it takes quite a bit of traffic/resources to require a dedicated server, and perhaps they can save money and avoid having to use one. I won't try to belabor the issue with the webmaster. (I doubt they care to hear a whole lot of advice from me anyway!) But I feel better having said something.
Thanks for the info about VPS. I knew of them (but haven't ever needed one myself . . . yet!). I might mention that as well.
