What hardware component is most important for this?
Moderator: General Moderators
- seodevhead
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Windermere, FL
What hardware component is most important for this?
Hey guys... I'm launching a new website that is very video intensive (HD video to be exact... much like Apple's Quicktime HD Trailers). I'm getting a new dedicated server, but because this is a new site, it's hard for me to guess what my approximate load/traffic will be, but I'm guessing about 5k-7k uniques per day each watching about 2-3 200mb videos every day.
For a website like this, I'm a little unsure what hardware I should place emphasis on when I build the server. I have the bandwidth taken care of, but between...
1) Processor
2) RAM
3) Hard drive(s)
I'm unsure which of these components is more important than the others in terms of delivering these video files to visitors the quickest. Besides just the videos, it's a standard website with php pages, mysql databases and forums and whatnot, so it's not just a video repository. Anyone have any suggestions or advice?
For a website like this, I'm a little unsure what hardware I should place emphasis on when I build the server. I have the bandwidth taken care of, but between...
1) Processor
2) RAM
3) Hard drive(s)
I'm unsure which of these components is more important than the others in terms of delivering these video files to visitors the quickest. Besides just the videos, it's a standard website with php pages, mysql databases and forums and whatnot, so it's not just a video repository. Anyone have any suggestions or advice?
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
I actually did mean S3 (for serving up all that video data).
EC2 seems poorly suited to any app that involves a database since it's stateless - I'd use either a VPS or dedicated server for the DB / web and S3 for the storage / bandwidth intensive components.
There's a calculator at Amazon for you to spec out how much it would cost, but I have a feeling it would be a more effective solution than laying out for the massive infrastructure needed.
Apple uses Akamai for their video hosting, IIRC, so it's not a radical architecture by any means.
EC2 seems poorly suited to any app that involves a database since it's stateless - I'd use either a VPS or dedicated server for the DB / web and S3 for the storage / bandwidth intensive components.
There's a calculator at Amazon for you to spec out how much it would cost, but I have a feeling it would be a more effective solution than laying out for the massive infrastructure needed.
Apple uses Akamai for their video hosting, IIRC, so it's not a radical architecture by any means.
- seodevhead
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:18 pm
- Location: Windermere, FL
I think this Amazon EC2 and S3 is beyond the scope of what I am looking for. Besides, from my initial readings on both of these, it is WAYY beyond my skill level to manage something like that in conjunction with my server. Plus, it would put a big kink in the way scripts have been written for this new website.
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
I support Kieran's comments. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is quite an economical proposition, too, since you can utilize really massive capacity while paying only for what you actively use. I attended a local AWS MeetUp, but haven't used the services, myself. Anyone interested in learning more about these services should check out http://aws.amazon.com and http://awsome.ws (the MeetUp group).
If you're looking for solutions, do give thought to all the potential ones available. Learning something new isn't all that hard. Look how old I am, and I'm still learning!!
@Kieran: OK on S3, but I was thinking of the server capacity, for which EC2 sounds like it could offer a flexibility and expansion capacity you could never match with your own hardware--to me, anyway.
If you're looking for solutions, do give thought to all the potential ones available. Learning something new isn't all that hard. Look how old I am, and I'm still learning!!
@Kieran: OK on S3, but I was thinking of the server capacity, for which EC2 sounds like it could offer a flexibility and expansion capacity you could never match with your own hardware--to me, anyway.
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
- Chris Corbyn
- Breakbeat Nuttzer
- Posts: 13098
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
So you use an external VPS with a master DB, and each EC2 has a slave DB that replicates the entire DB when started? I guess that would work, but it still means having your own external master.Chris Corbyn wrote:What's wrong with MySQL replication?We manage just fine with EC2.
Still feels kinda hackish, in a totally non-judgmental sort of way