If I create a multi-tenant system using Laravel, what kind of software/tool do I need to use to be able to impose limitations on the use of server resources (cpu, memory, bandwidth) according to the plan that the customer hires?
What I'm looking for is something similar to how Shopify works. My goal with this question is to find a solution that works for this purpose at the lowest possible cost, at least to start the project and see the results.
The choice of this pricing method is precisely to keep the initial costs low, because it can happen that one or more clients have websites with a large number of visits and end up consuming all the server's resources causing slowdowns on the other clients' websites.
Anyone who has a saas in this model, or has worked for a company like this, can help me understand how it works and give me a starting point or suggestion on how to do it.
Related
Is cloud hosting the way to go? Or is there something better that delivers fast page loads?
The reason I ask is because I run a buddypress site on a bluehost dedicated server, but it seems to run slow at most times of the day. This scares me because at the moment the sites not live and I'm afraid when it gets traffic it'll become worse and my visitors will lose interest. I use Amazon Cloud to handle all my media, JS, and CSS files along with a catching plugin, but it still loads slow at times.
I feel like the problem is Bluehost, because I visit other sites running buddypress and their sites seem to load instantly. Im not web hosting savvy so can someone please point me in the right direction here?
The hosting choice depends on many factors such as technical requirements, growth rates, burst rates, budgets and more.
Bigger Hardware
To scale up hosting operation, your first choice is often just using a more powerful server, VPS, or cloud instance. The point is not so much cloud vs. dedicated but that you simply bring more compute power to the problem. Cloud can make scaling up easier - often with a few clicks.
Division of Labor
The next step often is division of labor. You offload database, static content, caching or other items to specific servers or services. For example, you could offload static content to a CDN. You could a dedicated database.
Once again, cloud vs non-cloud is not the issue. The point is to bring more resources to your hosting problems.
Pick the Right Application Stack
I cannot stress enough picking the right underlying technology for your needs. For example, I've recently helped a client switch from a Apache/PHP stack to a Varnish/Nginx/PHP-FPM stack for a very business Wordpress operation (>100 million page views/mo). This change boosted capacity by nearly 5X with modest hardware changes.
Same App. Different Story
Also just because you are using a specific application, it does not mean the same hosting setup will work for you. I don't know about the specific app you are using but with Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla, Vbulletin and others, the plugins, site design, themes and other items are critical to overall performance.
To complicate matter, user behavior is something to consider as well. Consider a discussion form that has a 95:1 read:post ratio. What if you do something in the design to encourage more posts and that ratio moves to 75:1. That means more database writes, less caching, etc.
In short, details matter, so get a good understanding of your application before you start to scale out hosting.
A hosting service is part of the solution. Another part is proper server configuration.
For instance this guy has optimized his setup to serve 10 million requests in a day off a micro-instance on AWS.
I think you should look at your server config first, then shop for other hosts. If you can't control server configuration, try AWS, Rackspace or other cloud services.
just an FYI: You can sign up for AWS and use a micro instance free for one year. The link I posted - he just optimized on the same server. You might have to upgrade to a small server because Amazon has stated that micro is only to handle spikes and sustained traffic.
Good luck.
My web application requires as little lag as possible. I have tried hosting it on a dedicated server, but users on the other side of world have complained about latency issues.
So I am considering using CDN or Amazon services.... would either help resolve this?
The application uses a lot of AJAX, so latency can be an issue.
Amazon's Cloudfront, part of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) that you can purchase, is a CDN (Content Delivery Network) -- so asking whether to use Amazon or "a CDN" strikes me as a weird question, akin to asking whether you should drink Coke or "a soda" (given that Coke is "a soda"). Rather you should ask "should I use Amazon or another CDN?" just like you'd ask "should I drink Coke or another soda?".
Your decision among CDNs must be based on many parameters - cost, reliability, convenience, speed, and so forth. Unfortunately I have no first-hand experience of CloudFront; however, on paper, it seems particularly simple to use (especially if you're already using other AWS components, since getting data e.g. from S3 to CloudFront is fast and cheap indeed;-), and reasonably priced (based on usage). But I have no experience about its uptime record or delivery speed.
A content delivery network is a great idea to speed up delivery of static content (images, javascript, etc). You could even use this in combination with a dedicated server if you want.
You may also consider using a tool such as YSlow to analyze what may be causing your latency issues.
A CDN will only improve the performance of your static content -- if your Ajax code requires active content, then it won't help for that.
Amazon AWS might help, but it depends on the details of your application. Amazon isn't particularly well-known for delivering a low-latency solution.
Most apps that require low latency end up addressing the issue from many directions. A combination of a CDN and dedicated servers is certainly one approach. One key there is choosing the right data center for your servers (a low-latency hub).
In case it might help, I wrote a book about this subject: Ultra-Fast ASP.NET, which includes a discussion of client-side issues, hardware infrastructure, CDNs, caching, and many other issues that can impact latency.
We have a new project for a web app that will display banners ads on websites (as a network) and our estimate is for it to handle 20 to 40 billion impressions a month.
Our current language is in ASP...but are moving to PHP. Does PHP 5 has its limit with scaling web application? Or, should I have our team invest in picking up JSP?
Or, is it a matter of the app server and/or DB? We plan to use Oracle 10g as the database.
No offense, but I strongly suspect you're vastly overestimating how many impressions you'll serve.
That said:
PHP or other languages used in the application tier really have little to do with scalability. Since the application tier delegates it's state to the database or equivalent, it's straightforward to add as much capacity as you need behind appropriate load balancing. Choice of language does influence per server efficiency and hence costs, but that's different than scalability.
It's scaling the state/data storage that gets more complicated.
For your app, you have three basic jobs:
what ad do we show?
serving the add
logging the impression
Each of these will require thought and likely different tools.
The second, serving the add, is most simple: use a CDN. If you actually serve the volume you claim, you should be able to negotiate favorable rates.
Deciding which ad to show is going to be very specific to your network. It may be as simple as reading a few rows from a database that give ad placements for a given property for a given calendar period. Or it may be complex contextual advertising like google. Assuming it's more the former, and that the database of placements is small, then this is the simple task of scaling database reads. You can use replication trees or alternately a caching layer like memcached.
The last will ultimately be the most difficult: how to scale the writes. A common approach would be to still use databases, but to adopt a sharding scaling strategy. More exotic options might be to use a key/value store supporting counter instructions, such as Redis, or a scalable OLAP database such as Vertica.
All of the above assumes that you're able to secure data center space and network provisioning capable of serving this load, which is not trivial at the numbers you're talking.
You do realize that 40 billion per month is roughly 15,500 per second, right?
Scaling isn't going to be your problem - infrastructure period is going to be your problem. No matter what technology stack you choose, you are going to need an enormous amount of hardware - as others have said in the form of a farm or cloud.
This question (and the entire subject) is a bit subjective. You can write a dog slow program in any language, and host it on anything.
I think your best bet is to see how your current implementation works under load. Maybe just a few tweaks will make things work for you - but changing your underlying framework seems a bit much.
That being said - your infrastructure team will also have to be involved as it seems you have some serious load requirements.
Good luck!
I think that it is not matter of language, but it can be be a matter of database speed as CPU processing speed. Have you considered a web farm? In this way you can have more than one machine serving your application. There are some ways to implement this solution. You can start with two server and add more server as the app request more processing volume.
In other point, Oracle 10g is a very good database server, in my humble opinion you only need a stand alone Oracle server to commit the volume of request. Remember that a SQL server is faster as the people request more or less the same things each time and it happens in web application if you plan your database schema carefully.
You also have to check all the Ad Server application solutions and there are a very good ones, just try Google with "Open Source AD servers".
PHP will be capable of serving your needs. However, as others have said, your first limits will be your network infrastructure.
But your second limits will be writing scalable code. You will need good abstraction and isolation so that resources can easily be added at any level. Things like a fast data-object mapper, multiple data caching mechanisms, separate configuration files, and so on.
What makes a site good for high traffic?
Does it have more to do with the hardware/infrastructure, or with how one writes the software, using Java as the example, if it matters?
I'm wondering how the software changes just because it is expected that billions of users will be on the site, if at all.
My understanding up to this point is that the code doesn't change, but that it is deployed on multiple servers, in a cluster, and a load balancer distributes the load, so really, on any one server/deployment, the application is just as any other standard application/website.
I highly recommend reading Jeff Atwood's blog on Micro-Optimization. In previous blogs he talks somewhat about how this site was created and the hardware upgrades he has had (which quickly summarized said that better hardware performs better only the extent that it is faster/better), but the real speed of a site comes from good programming, and this article seems like it should sum up some of your site programming questions quite well.
Hardware is cheap. Programming is expensive.
There are some programming techniques to make sure your code can handle multiple simultaneous views/updates. If you're using an existing framework, much of that work is (hopefully) done for you, but otherwise you're going to find stuff that worked for a few hundred hits an hour on one server isn't going to work when you're getting hundreds of thousands of hits and you have to deploy multiple load balancing machines.
Well, it is primarily an issue of hardware scaling but there are a few things to keep in mind with respect to the software involved in scaling. For example, if you are on a server farm, you'll need to work with a session management server (either via SQL Server or via a state server - which has implications in that your session variables need to be serializable).
But, in the bigger picture, there are a variety of things that you would want to do to scale to an enterprise level. For example, it becomes particularly important that you abstract out your database calls to a DAL because you may well need to adopt the use of a middleware package for high volume environments.
I have been doing some catching up lately by reading about cloud hosting.
For a client that has about the same characteristics as StackOverflow (Windows stack, same amount of visitors), I need to set up a hosting environment. Stackoverflow went from renting to buying.
The question is why didn't they choose cloud hosting?
Since Stackoverflow doesn't use any weird stuff that needs to run on a dedicated server and supposedly cloud hosting is 'the' solution, why not use it?
By getting answers to this question I hope to be able to make a weighted decision myself.
I honestly do not know why SO runs like it does, on privately owned servers.
However, I can assume why a website would prefer this:
Maintainability - when things DO go wrong, you want to be hands-on on the problem, and solve it as quickly as possible, without needing to count on some third-party. Of course the downside is that you need to be available 24/7 to handle these problems.
Scalability - Cloud hosting (or any external hosting, for that matter) is very convenient for a small to medium-sized site. And most of the hosting providers today do give you the option to start small (shared hosting for example) and grow to private servers/VPN/etc... But if you truly believe you will need that extra growth space, you might want to count only on your own infrastructure.
Full Control - with your own servers, you are never bound to any restrictions or limitations a hosting service might impose on you. Run whatever you want, hog your CPU or your RAM, whatever. It's your server. Many hosting providers do not give you this freedom (unless you pay up, of course :) )
Again, this is a cost-effectiveness issue, and each business will handle it differently.
I think this might be a big reason why:
Cloud databases are typically more
limited in functionality than their
local counterparts. App Engine returns
up to 1000 results. SimpleDB times out
within 5 seconds. Joining records from
two tables in a single query breaks
databases optimized for scale. App
Engine offers specialized storage and
query types such as geographical
coordinates.
The database layer of a cloud instance
can be abstracted as a separate
best-of-breed layer within a cloud
stack but developers are most likely
to use the local solution for both its
speed and simplicity.
From Niall Kennedy
Obviously I cannot say for StackOverflow, but I have a few clients that went the "cloud hosting" route. All of which are now frantically trying to get off of the cloud.
In a lot of cases, it just isn't 100% there yet. Limitations in user tracking (passing of requestor's IP address), fluctuating performance due to other load on the cloud, and unknown usage number are just a few of the issues that have came up.
From what I've seen (and this is just based on reading various blogged stories) most of the time the dollar-costs of cloud hosting just don't work out, especially given a little bit of planning or analysis. It's only really valuable for somebody who expects highly fluctuating traffic which defies prediction, or seasonal bursts. I guess in it's infancy it's just not quite competitive enough.
IIRC Jeff and Joel said (in one of the podcasts) that they did actually run the numbers and it didn't work out cloud-favouring.
I think Jeff said in one of the Podcasts that he wanted to learn a lot of things about hosting, and generally has fun doing it. Some headaches aside (see the SO blog), I think it's a great learning experience.
Cloud computing definitely has it's advantages as many of the other answers have noted, but sometimes you just want to be able to control every bit of your server.
I looked into it once for quite a small site. Running a small Amazon instance for a year would cost around £700 + bandwidth costs + S3 storage costs. VPS hosting with similar specs and a decent bandwidth allowance chucked in is around £500. So I think cost has a lot to do with it unless you are going to have fluctuating traffic and lots of it!
I'm sure someone from SO will answer it but "Isn't just more hassle"? Old school hosting is still cheap and unless you got big scalability problems why would you do cloud hosting?