There is a lot written about the performance of Laravel. It is not the very best framework when it comes to fast applications but it has a lot of options and a brilliant community and documentation. I would like to know if Laravel suits my situation:
I'm currently developing a browsergame that, hopefully, will be played by thousands of visitors worldwide. There could be over 3000 concurrent users at the same time. The application is a bit heavy, because it needs a lot of different modules: views, routing, session management, authentication, database connections, cronjobs and so on. It really is a dynamic game so the application will be loaded a lot of times. And: I don't have that much money to invest in a lot of dedicated servers (at least not in the very beginning).
I looked to other frameworks too. Because Lumen, Slim and some other micro frameworks don't support all of the modules my game needs, I think Laravel is a good choice. But I'm really scared for the benchmarks I see. Laravel doesn't look good there when compared to other frameworks: it's slow, consumes a lot of memory and can't handle many requests.
So my question: is Laravel a good choice for a heavy browsergame website with potential of thousands of concurrent users? Caching and Homestead will help for sure, but is Laravel a good choice at all, or is there a really better framework?
It's less about the framework, and more about how you write your code.
Follow good practices, plan for scaling, and Laravel can absolutely be a very high-performance solution for you. I've heard of some using Laravel with millions of requests per day.
We run a large production app with Laravel, load balanced across multiple web servers, separate redundant database servers, Redis caching, etc. We've had lots of scaling issues, but interestingly none of them were related to the framework. Your main bottlenecks will be elsewhere.
Folks worry way too much about performance before even beginning a project (premature optimization, and all that). Pick the best tool for the job in terms of what it does for you. Then build your app with scaling in mind.
If Laravel provides the functionality you need and you like how it works, use it!
Related
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 :)
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.
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.
What various methods and technologies have you used to successfully address scalability and performance concerns of a website? I am an ASP.NET web developer exploring .NET remoting with WCF with SQL clustering and am curious as to what other approaches exist (such as the ‘cloud’). In which cases would you apply various approaches (for example method a for roughly x many ‘active’ users).
An example of what I mean, a myspace case study: http://highscalability.com/myspace-architecture
This is a very broad question making it difficult to answer, but I'll try and provide a few general suggestions.
1 - Unless you are doing some things seriously wrong then you'll likely not need to worry about perf or scale until you hit a significant amount of traffic (over 1 million page views a month).
2 - Your biggest performance problems initially are likely to be the page load times from other countries. Try the Gomez Instance Site Test to see the page load times from around the world, and use YSlow as a guide for optimizing.
3 - When you do start hitting performance problems it will first most likely be due to the database work. Use the SQL Server Profiler to examine your SQL traffic looking for long running queries to try optimizing, and also use dm_db_missing_index_details to look for indexes you should add.
4 - If your web servers start becoming the performance bottleneck, use a profiler to (such as the ANTS Profiler) to look for ways to optimize your web pages code.
5 - If your web servers are well optimized and still running too hot, look for more caching opportunities, but you're probably going to need to simply add more web servers.
6 - If your database is well optimized and still running too hot, then look at adding a distributed caching system. This probably won't happen until you're over 10 million page views a month.
7 - If your database is starting to get overwhelmed even with distributed caching, then look at a sharding architecture. This probably won't happen until you're over 100 million page views a month.
I've worked on a few sites that get millions/hits/month. Here are some basics:
Cache, cache, cache. Caching is one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce load on your webserver and database. Cache page content, queries, expensive computation, anything that is I/O bound. Memcache is dead simple and effective.
Use multiple servers once you are maxed out. You can have multiple web servers and multiple database servers (with replication).
Reduce overall # of request to your webservers. This entails caching JS, CSS and images using expires headers. You can also move your static content to a CDN, which will speed up your user's experience.
Measure & benchmark. Run Nagios on your production machines and load test on your dev/qa server. You need to know when your server will catch on fire so you can prevent it.
I'd recommend reading Building Scalable Websites, it was written by one of the Flickr engineers and is a great reference.
Check out my blog post about scalability too, it has a lot of links to presentations about scaling with multiple languages and platforms:
http://www.ryandoherty.net/2008/07/13/unicorns-and-scalability/
There is velocity from MS as well as MEMCache has a port to .NET now and also indeXus.Net