Anyone here at Jodohost getting 500,000 hits to 1 million hits per month
- Thread starter yorri
- Start date
We have such a site hosted on Jodohost having 2500-3000 visitors per day with about 700,000 to 1 million hits per month. It is using bandwidth of about 7-8 GB per month. It is hosted in shared environment and without dedicated IP. Site gets about 30% traffic through Google.
When I answered your question, your question got overwritten with my above answer and my reply thread got deleted on its own. Very strange, there is definitely some bug in the Forum program.
I will appreciate if you could write your question again so that others can also reply to it.
When I answered your question, your question got overwritten with my above answer and my reply thread got deleted on its own. Very strange, there is definitely some bug in the Forum program.
I will appreciate if you could write your question again so that others can also reply to it.
DAMN BUGS!!!! 
Cool...thanks for the info. I was thinking that it would eat up more bandwidth than that so it looks like maybe I could host them here.
Do you know if that site uses a database? I understand that database traffic adds to the http traffic...this is why I am asking.
They are also looking for a mailing list but I am waiting to find out numbers as to how many people they expect. I see the current system supports 50,000.
Thanks.
Cool...thanks for the info. I was thinking that it would eat up more bandwidth than that so it looks like maybe I could host them here.
Do you know if that site uses a database? I understand that database traffic adds to the http traffic...this is why I am asking.
They are also looking for a mailing list but I am waiting to find out numbers as to how many people they expect. I see the current system supports 50,000.
Thanks.
My question was that I have a client and he is looking to set up a site and expecting 500K to 1 million hits per month and I have no clue what kind of package to look at. I understand that it will depend on the page size (including graphics etc) but since I have never monitored a site with hits that many I have no clue what kind of bandwidth it would use.
I was hoping people could bounce numbers off me.
I guess while I am at it...Access wouldn't be able to handle that type of load would it. I know that MS says up to 255 concurrent users and I have a friend that runs a site with 1100 members so it is pretty busy but he doesn't pay attention to his bandwidth or how much he is actually using...it is very graphic intensive so I know it wouldn't be a modest number.
Anyway..even if people don't have sites that high...numbers would be good to know for the future so I can guestimate what package someone should get.
Thanks
I was hoping people could bounce numbers off me.
I guess while I am at it...Access wouldn't be able to handle that type of load would it. I know that MS says up to 255 concurrent users and I have a friend that runs a site with 1100 members so it is pretty busy but he doesn't pay attention to his bandwidth or how much he is actually using...it is very graphic intensive so I know it wouldn't be a modest number.
Anyway..even if people don't have sites that high...numbers would be good to know for the future so I can guestimate what package someone should get.
Thanks
yorri said:
why MS Access when you get SQL Server for free? It may be able to handle your client's load at the moment but what happens when it increases? Start from a solid foundation
500K to 1M hits wouldn't consume more than 7 or 8GB unless it is graphics intensive. I doubt using a database would have much effect on your total usage
I find Access easier to manage and backup...I just make sure a file is synced. I also don't need to run MSDE or SQL Server on my development server here at home...so there are many reasons why I choose Access over SQL SERVER. Mostly ease of use.
Just because something is free does not make it better besides..Database traffic is monitored and charged on top of existing http traffic when you use SQL Server because it is on a different server
Since Access is on the same server as the website it doesn't cause extra bandwidth...which is another thing to take into account (might not matter but I am just saying there are other things to take into consideration than cost)
Just because something is free does not make it better besides..Database traffic is monitored and charged on top of existing http traffic when you use SQL Server because it is on a different server
Since Access is on the same server as the website it doesn't cause extra bandwidth...which is another thing to take into account (might not matter but I am just saying there are other things to take into consideration than cost)
StPatrick
Perch
That's right, this is the reason why I like to use Access. The only thing that I hate in Access, it doesn't have stored procedures. Well, besides those one-sql-statement-long queries, of course, but you can't do anything with them.yorri said:
Also I'm not sure about the performance when Access's database grows. I have right now 15Mb database file (mostly all text - forums), still everything run ok, so we'll see...
StPatrick said:
If I rememeber correctly Access has an upper limit of 1 or 2 GB depending on which version you are using but don't quote me on that
Performance of larger Access dbs are a different issue and it would be interesting to know other people's experience with Access and what it can resonably handle. Everyone is welcome to share their experiences here with us
I know someone who is running an Access DB at 250MB without a problem, reading and writing including images. He doesn't monitor actual usage but there are over 1000 members...I just don't know how often they visit the site.
Image intensive sites may not consume that much bandwidth, especially when they're small images, like on this forum.
I didn't even know that access could handle that many members, so I just use SQL Server. Plus, when Mircrosoft designed access, they never meant for it to be used this widely online. Maybe access 2004 will be more web geared? I heard somewhere that SQL Server is a lot faster with asp, which is good, since my site is a bit too database dependent. In fact, I tried my site with access and it crashed, so... Performance of databases and sites rely on the quality of a script. (No wonder StPatrick's database works so well) IE: ASP pages that use Option Explicit are a bit faster on the server and databases since it predefines the variables. Also, it you load configurations from a database on one included page, it's faster.
I didn't even know that access could handle that many members, so I just use SQL Server. Plus, when Mircrosoft designed access, they never meant for it to be used this widely online. Maybe access 2004 will be more web geared? I heard somewhere that SQL Server is a lot faster with asp, which is good, since my site is a bit too database dependent. In fact, I tried my site with access and it crashed, so... Performance of databases and sites rely on the quality of a script. (No wonder StPatrick's database works so well
) IE: ASP pages that use Option Explicit are a bit faster on the server and databases since it predefines the variables. Also, it you load configurations from a database on one included page, it's faster.I think there are too many people that trash talk Access because they see that MS says....if you need more than 10 users...upgrade. There is also the issue of database corruption. This 250MB database website is constantly being read AND written too. It's not just a read only database and in over a year(I think it has been a year running) it has not become corrupted once. I am not saying it doesn't happen but I am sorry I have never seen one AND I wouldn't suggest run a bank's on Access either
I've just done some reading and it seems the problem comes down to how many concurrent connections. MS says it supports 255...other people are crying out that it craps out anywhere from 5 to 100. I find it hard to believe that it has that type of range...but design and bad programming maybe will cause it to crap out sooner. I also read a comment that the machines resources will crap out before Access...so who do we believe? I think we need to believe ourselves first.
It would be great if there was a tool that could give us unbiased numbers. I know there are stress test tools so maybe I should look into trying those..They will at least tell me how many people at once can access certain pages and ultimately give me a better indicator of database performance.
I also just read that MySQL can only accept 10 users as well....hmmm I though it was much more robust..Oh well....doesn't matter since it doesnt' support Stored Procedures so why bother using it over Access
Ok this is really getting off topic
I've just done some reading and it seems the problem comes down to how many concurrent connections. MS says it supports 255...other people are crying out that it craps out anywhere from 5 to 100. I find it hard to believe that it has that type of range...but design and bad programming maybe will cause it to crap out sooner. I also read a comment that the machines resources will crap out before Access...so who do we believe? I think we need to believe ourselves first.
It would be great if there was a tool that could give us unbiased numbers. I know there are stress test tools so maybe I should look into trying those..They will at least tell me how many people at once can access certain pages and ultimately give me a better indicator of database performance.
I also just read that MySQL can only accept 10 users as well....hmmm I though it was much more robust..Oh well....doesn't matter since it doesnt' support Stored Procedures so why bother using it over Access
Ok this is really getting off topic
StPatrick
Perch
Oups, I meant that Access doesn't support good Stored Procedures, SQL Server doyorri said:..Oh well....doesn't matter since it doesnt' support Stored Procedures so why bother using it over Access
About stress test.. Hmm.. There is a tool included with my Visual Studio .NET, called Application Test Center, maybe I should look into it and try the web site with it to see how much concurrent connections it can support (on my local machine of course
)And other plus for Access - I've written a web-based tool for Access administering - it is much faster than Enterprise Manager, so I like using it, lol. Yeah, maybe I should include SQL Server support to it instead
jodo-visitor
Guppy
We're on our way to that goal! http://www.whyfingerprint.com.
We're on our way to that goal! http://www.whyfingerprint.com.
We're on our way to that goal! http://www.whyfingerprint.com.
reptilecrazy
Perch
These are my stats from november,
Total Sessions Served 71614
Total Hits 1405118
Total Page Hits 505324
Total Non Page Hits 899794
Total Session Duration 26383300s
Total Transferred 6.45 GB
December was slightly quieter coz of the season, we dont have figures for jan figures are all over the place lol as we changed over from access to SQL, the access wasnt copeing with the volume at all by that stage.
I have the site on the windows gold package and it covers it very well.
Total Sessions Served 71614
Total Hits 1405118
Total Page Hits 505324
Total Non Page Hits 899794
Total Session Duration 26383300s
Total Transferred 6.45 GB
December was slightly quieter coz of the season, we dont have figures for jan figures are all over the place lol as we changed over from access to SQL, the access wasnt copeing with the volume at all by that stage.
I have the site on the windows gold package and it covers it very well.
MarkeyHost
Perch
Yash said:
Release Candidate 3 is out... or has been out for a while... I have been using it... only found one real bug with the admin control panel
. Markey
SubSpace
Bass
I hope it gets rid of the JavaScript error I get every time I post
As for using an Access database, I would highly advise against it. Personally I have pretty bad experiences with using Access with websites (and in general). A couple of years ago me and a few other people made a website using Access, and the Access driver would mess up if you refreshed the same page a couple of times in a row on a local network.
Things have probably changed for the better, still it doesn't bode well. I've seen queries that were 100+ times as fast in MySQL compared to Access with no difference in database structure
Access' interpretation of a SQL standard is mediocre at best as well. Even if it's a little more work, be on the safe side and use MS SQL or MySQL if you will. phpMyAdmin works faster than MS SQL Enterprise Manager, but if you want complex queries MySQL isn't really what you're looking for (yet).
As for using an Access database, I would highly advise against it. Personally I have pretty bad experiences with using Access with websites (and in general). A couple of years ago me and a few other people made a website using Access, and the Access driver would mess up if you refreshed the same page a couple of times in a row on a local network.
Things have probably changed for the better, still it doesn't bode well. I've seen queries that were 100+ times as fast in MySQL compared to Access with no difference in database structure
Access' interpretation of a SQL standard is mediocre at best as well. Even if it's a little more work, be on the safe side and use MS SQL or MySQL if you will. phpMyAdmin works faster than MS SQL Enterprise Manager, but if you want complex queries MySQL isn't really what you're looking for (yet).
MarkeyHost said:Release Candidate 3 is out... or has been out for a while... I have been using it... only found one real bug with the admin control panel
Markey
Thanks for telling me.. I'll try finding some time to upgrade it.
I do recommend the use of Microsoft SQL Server if you entire site is data-driven. I dont think MS Access is built for forums, etc. And for big databases/popular sites, it can cause RAM and CPU utilisation issues.