4 ms·

Server has not been resized... hopefully it holds up now. Went from 512MB to 4096MB, I should tweak the configs a bit more. That's what I get for being lazy.

dfc 15y ago
"Has not been resized"?
- tylerreed 15y ago
  sigh, typing too fast! :/ It has been resized :)
  - dfc 15y ago
    What? You have better things to worry about at the moment?;) Was not trying to be a jerk. I thought I was missing something. Best of luck!
    - tylerreed 15y ago
      haha.. setup load balancing now as well. Thanks! :)
Animus7 15y ago
I find it quite puzzling that "cloud computing" is still so manual and (virtual) "server"-centric. Bumping up numbers in config is less work than gutting a rack to be sure, but surely there is room to apply Apple's hands-free design philosophies to cloud infrastructure? Food for thought.
- encoderer 15y ago
  There's certainly systems out there built to scale automatically. I was on a small team that wrote such a system for an ad network. We tracked clicks on our own (physical) servers but for impressions, you're talking a system built to serve upwards of 30bn a month. While nothing compared to industry-leaders (Google, DoubleClick, etc), that's still around 10,000 impressions a second.' We had no problem building a system on our inhouse servers to handle that 10k/s number: A very thin PHP instance running on port 80 that does nothing but push the impression into a Gearman queue. Easy enough, even at that scale. The problem of course is that you're not getting 10k/s. Some seconds you may get 100k, others 1k. So we built a simple system that automatically spawned S3 instances when we began to see high loads, distributed the latest code to them, and when we no longer needed them, we downloaded the DB they held locally and moved the data to HDFS. What we did is pretty common, I'm sure. It's all pretty straightforward software.
mootothemax 15y ago
I can't see in the raw HTML any indication that you're using caching; when you have a spare minute, I'd advise installing the W3 Total Cache plugin. Going forwards, if you're not using nginx already then I'd highly recommend making the switch - in combination with caching it'll make things like this a thing of the past on a 512MB box :)
- tylerreed 15y ago
  thanks for the advice, I shall will implement both, been wanting to switch to nginx for a while, laziness comes back to haunt me. haha :)

dfc 15y ago

"Has not been resized"?

tylerreed 15y ago
sigh, typing too fast! :/ It has been resized :)
- dfc 15y ago
  What? You have better things to worry about at the moment?;) Was not trying to be a jerk. I thought I was missing something. Best of luck!
  - tylerreed 15y ago
    haha.. setup load balancing now as well. Thanks! :)

Animus7 15y ago

I find it quite puzzling that "cloud computing" is still so manual and (virtual) "server"-centric. Bumping up numbers in config is less work than gutting a rack to be sure, but surely there is room to apply Apple's hands-free design philosophies to cloud infrastructure? Food for thought.

encoderer 15y ago
There's certainly systems out there built to scale automatically. I was on a small team that wrote such a system for an ad network. We tracked clicks on our own (physical) servers but for impressions, you're talking a system built to serve upwards of 30bn a month. While nothing compared to industry-leaders (Google, DoubleClick, etc), that's still around 10,000 impressions a second.' We had no problem building a system on our inhouse servers to handle that 10k/s number: A very thin PHP instance running on port 80 that does nothing but push the impression into a Gearman queue. Easy enough, even at that scale. The problem of course is that you're not getting 10k/s. Some seconds you may get 100k, others 1k. So we built a simple system that automatically spawned S3 instances when we began to see high loads, distributed the latest code to them, and when we no longer needed them, we downloaded the DB they held locally and moved the data to HDFS. What we did is pretty common, I'm sure. It's all pretty straightforward software.

mootothemax 15y ago

I can't see in the raw HTML any indication that you're using caching; when you have a spare minute, I'd advise installing the W3 Total Cache plugin. Going forwards, if you're not using nginx already then I'd highly recommend making the switch - in combination with caching it'll make things like this a thing of the past on a 512MB box :)

tylerreed 15y ago
thanks for the advice, I shall will implement both, been wanting to switch to nginx for a while, laziness comes back to haunt me. haha :)