Been using Linode for 2+ years.

Post #364,972 by mvitale 10/4/12 9:16:15 AM Reply	Been using Linode for 2+ years. None of those issues. For the size box that I have, it's around $250/yr. Business expense, of course. -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #364,979 by drook 10/4/12 11:52:22 AM Reply	What kind of traffic? I'm paying over $100/month, getting from 4k - 10k visitors per day, and slower than I'd like. -- Drew
Post #365,059 by mvitale 10/7/12 7:22:44 PM Reply	Sorry it's taken me this long to reply... Just logged into my Linode account. First time in a while. Always under 2 GB per month. 1.7 is the most I've seen; sometimes under 1 GB/mo. It looks like on this particular plan that I have (Linode 512), I get up to 200 GB transfer monthly. -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #365,064 by drook 10/7/12 9:05:53 PM Reply	Thanks With my image-heavy content, that wouldn't work. I'm trying to figure out what S3 / Cloudfront will cost, probably going to go that way. -- Drew
Post #365,066 by mvitale 10/7/12 9:15:02 PM Reply	Dayum Over 200GB bandwidth per month? Sheesh! What about Akamai/some other CDN? -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #365,068 by drook 10/7/12 10:08:44 PM Reply	Depends on the month, but yeah Current long-term report from Analog: Average data transferred per day: 12.17 gigabytes -- Drew
Post #365,071 by malraux 10/7/12 11:02:49 PM Reply	Linode 1024 has 400GB/mo bandwidth for $40 http://www.linode.com/ Or you can add a bandwidth package to a cheaper VPS. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #365,074 by drook 10/7/12 11:22:19 PM Reply	Hmm ... time for more research Probably shouldn't cheap out, though. I'm already running too slow with what I've got now. -- Drew
Post #365,094 by drook 10/8/12 11:03:24 PM Reply	Here's my problem My current VPS has 3G guaranteed (actually 3001MB) and load keeps spiking. Just serving the images shouldn't be consuming CPU/RAM like that, should it? That's why I think I need to clean up the template first. Bandwidth isn't the issue. And by the way, the estimate for current month usage: Estimated Usage For Cycle: 458.637 GB -- Drew
Post #365,096 by folkert 10/9/12 12:33:01 AM Reply	Here is my comment on your problem... You are complaining about images taking forever, spiking CPU and LOAD... probably JS and CSS as well. This way you are effectively only serving the actual content and AJAX from your machine with which its designed to do vs straight file serving. I think your VPS is IO Bound and memory bound and caching WAY to little with not enough memory for the bare metal and it shows with FileSystem IO. I'm betting if you do an iostat (from the systat package in CentOS) and watch it a while... you might just see something. I think a CDN will benefit you greatly. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #365,078 by folkert 10/7/12 11:52:36 PM Reply	S3/Cloudfront has a calculator And its pretty damned accurate. http://aws.amazon.co...oudfront/pricing/ In fact here is the bill estimator... and its very accurate, as long as your data is accurate. http://calculator.s3...ws.com/calc5.html Based on my rough calc... 30 days at 12.2GB each day == about 365GB == $44/month for US and Europe geo located serving. (fast) -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #365,079 by drook 10/8/12 2:57:03 AM Reply	That's just storage/static serving though, right? I still need the Wordpress hosting. And everyplace I've looked with the same (alleged) horsepower as my current host is comparable in price. I think the better bet is to find a good WP theme designer and have him clean up the hacked-up mess plus lots of plugins that I've got now into something more efficient. One-time payment and my performance is better forever. (Or until it's time for a redesign.) -- Drew
Post #365,080 by Another Scott 10/8/12 7:50:57 AM Reply	Efficiency's better, true. But... A lot of WordPress sites seem to be nice and snappy after a re-design, but something seems to happen to them over time. E.g. Balloon-Juice was amazingly fast after it's recent re-design, but over time has it developed things like reader responses showing up 3x per submission, creaking slowness under higher-than-normal loads, front-pagers being unable to embed videos for unknown reasons, etc. (It seems like stopping and restarting the commenting database part of the site helped some for some of these issues, but that's obviously not a permanent fix.) IOW, I wouldn't count on a one-time clean-up of the code. I'd think you'd want to find someone who can de-lint the site and also be available for tweaks and fixes a few weeks/months down the road when the inevitable storm of FYWPs hit. But maybe you can handle that after the initial fix (of course finding time for that is a problem...). My $0.02. Good luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #365,083 by folkert 10/8/12 8:57:22 AM Reply	Yes... Trust me when I say this: CDN served content takes a CRAPLOAD of load off your site. You serve only HTML from your site (and any AJAX calls (ie: jquery...etc)). We we went from serving all content from our webservers, to serving static from S3/Cloudfront for all images, LARGEFILES, CSS, MP3, PDFs...etc. All I can say is wow. Then your machine only has to serve the actual content, not the static files. Comparison, one of our customers chooses not to use the CDN, for fear of files being stolen. They are being charged for about 200GB per month. (our hosting is very specialized). Plus our hosting infrastructure has to go through a Web Application Firewall (WAF) for all web content served (including all images/css/pdfs/etc). Our own website, get about the same hits and we host all of our images and css and javascript on CDN... plus we also host all of our main products file on S3/Cloudfront. When we switched to using cloudfront for all that our colo traffic for our traffic dropped about 85%. We haven't bumped our 95th percentile limit in a LONG LONG time now. Also, page load times improved considerably, because of multiple requests to multiple locations, spreading traffic around and because most of the rendered info does have to traverse the "WAF" Plus you don't get problems like your Avatar being broken... if you get my drift. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #365,085 by mvitale 10/8/12 9:18:06 AM Reply	That part is not to be overlooked... Also, page load times improved considerably, because of multiple requests to multiple locations... As I recall from reading about improving response time a year or so ago, most browsers will only send 2 concurrent requests to the same hostname (such as www.clygm.com). That's why you'll often see larger websites with names like img1.corp.com and img2.corp.com. Every other image gets served from the alternate hostname, and thus 4 images can be served to your browser at once. -Mike @MikeVitale42 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Welcome to IWETHEY!