I'm a newbie web developer and I have a basic question regarding my Laravel based website: Where should I put my files? I know there are services like Amazon S3, but firstly I don't know how to work with them, and second they are NOT FREE.
There is going to be a fairly large amount of data including pics and videos (around 10 GB).where should I store them? And how should I use Laravel to allow users to upload files?
If it will be a bigger project, you should use a cloud service. This is going to be the future of backend development as it is making your project much easier and faster to mantain and run. If you want to make your own backend, this will take a long time to get it done, since you have to learn a lot of new things and should be good at it. There would be many key aspects you have to be aware of. Like securitiy, scaling, performance and so on ... Like you suggested Amazon AWS or imo much better Google Firebase. I think Google Firebase should be your pick because it is really easy do understand and has a great documentation. Next to the storing service (Google Cloud Storage) there are many several services you could use in the future like analytics, machine learning or nosql databases. And the good thing is that you can connect them all together.
With Google Firebase you have a Free Spark Plan which is completely free with some limitations. And if you scale to many users you can upgrade to the other plans, which is not very expensive. Don't forget that your own Back-End would cost you time and also money for the electricity and hardware cost.
If you have more questions be free to ask me :)
Related
I have to realize a web app able to guarantee two main actions execution:
first one action is about allowing to a small number of users to upload ads or posts, these A users will can upload ads in the application as they will want but they will can upload photos until five megabyte overall threshold. Moreover ads total number will be approximately 10k.
Second action is about allowing to a broad public (1k users per day) to looking for and check published articles from A users, these research will can be more accurate inserting advanced filters.
I would like to know if is strictly necessary build up my app in a scalable way or if I could simply use a MVC approach?
This app will be developed using Laravel framework and it will hosted by Amazon server.
what do you recommend me to do ?
I would like to have some advices, tips and tricks to do it in the best way.
Thanks in advance
The MVC approach is fine, Laravel, or any platform, can be scaled in multiple ways. The simplest is separating the functions of DB, laravel app, cache, queue, to separate servers, and each of those pieces can be scaled separately.
There is a great online set of videos about this, https://serversforhackers.com/scaling-laravel/forge.
But unless you know you will have a large amount of traffic right away, it's better to start with a simpler structure, you will save on cost and it's not hard to scale it later. I mean, start with one server for now, then maybe separate the functions (cache, DB etc) to separate servers as you find they need to be scaled.
If you want to save a little hassle though, I do recommend Laravel Forge, and Envoyer. It makes deploying and managing servers a lot easier. Envoyer is for deployments, great to automate all that.
I am having a large website that struggling a bit, uptime not great and speed as well, and there is a lot of load on it. I am thinking of moving into google cloud but I don't have time to manage the server and become the host.
So my idea is to just serve the database from google cloud (so I can benefit from the auto-scale) and leave the website files where they are now.
My question is: Will that put less load on the cpu? and will it eventually improve the website uptime?
Thanks
According to your question, I think yes it will help you to improve website performance but you will see a big jump in the performance because of the database utilize more CPU and ram in the server and when you provide a separate machine for the database it will increase performance but if you want to decrease website loading time then there are other services which I suggest you services like [Cloudflare][1] or any CDN it will help you and you can use web server optimization techniques.
You can use Google CloudSQL Service if you are using MySQL or Postgres Database. Else you can use Google Compute Engine VM which you have to manage. If you want a complete website auto-scaling option I would suggest you can go with Google App Engine by which you can easily do auto-scale companies like many well-funded startups.
https://www.cloudflare.com/
https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs
https://cloud.google.com/compute/pricing
If you want to move your data to GCP, I highly recommend using Cloud SQL. If budget is not an issue, auto-scaling would be advantageous.
Will that put less load on the cpu?
Most likely it will, since your taking away the database processes on your server.
You may also want to look into using Google App Engine connected to Cloud Sql in the same region will have less latency.
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.
We are building a mobile app with a rails CMS to manage it.
What our app look like?
Every admin user of the app can set one private channel with very small amount of data -
About 50 short strings.
Users can then download the app and register few different channels and fetch the data from the server to their devices. The data will be stored locally and will not be fetched again unless the admin user will update the data (but we assume that it won't happen so often). Every channel will be available to not more then 500 devices.
The users can contribute to the channel but this data will be stored on S3 and not on the database.
2 important points:
Most of the channels will be active for 5 months and not for 500 users +-. But most of the activity will happen on the same couple of days.
Every channel is for small amout of users (500) But we hope :) to get to hundreds of thousens of admin users.
Building the CMS with rails we saw that using SimpleDB is more strait-forward then using DynamoDB. But, as we are not server experts, we saw the limitations of SimpleDB and we don't know if SimpleDB could handle the amount of data transfer that we will have (if our app will succeed). another important point is that DynamoDb costs are much higher and not depended on the use while SimpleDb will be much cheaper at the beginning.
The question is:
Does simpleDB can feet our needs?
Could we migrate later to dynamoDB if our service will grow in the future ?
Starting out with a new project and not really knowing what to expect from the usage i'd say that the better option is to go with SimpleDB. It doesn't sound like your usage is going to be very high SimpleDB should be able to handle that no problem. The real power of dynamoDB comes in when you really have a lot of load. You don't fall into that category it seems.
If you design your application correctly switching between SimpleDB and DynamoDB should be a simple task if you decide at some point that SimlpeDB is not working out. I do these kind of switches all the time with other components in my software. Since both databases are NoSQL you shouldn't have a problem converting between the two. Just make sure that any any features you use in SimpleDB are available in DynamoDB. Make sure to design your database design for both DynamoDB has stricter requirements using indexes make sure that the two will be compatible.
That being said. Plenty of people have been using SimpleDB for their applications and I don't expect that you would see any performance problems unless your product really takes off, at which time you can invest in resources to move to DynamoDB.
Aside from all that we have the pricing, like you already mentioned. SimpleDB is the obvious solution for your use case.
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?