Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 8 years ago.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Improve this question
Currently I have a dedicated server with WHM and Joomla running.
I want to transfer it to new server. This new server has high speed bandwidth.
I only have remote access to the new server which has Win 2008 R2 installed and it shows it was installed on a VM.
I need to configure this server to run a domain name with Joomla which will be access by 10k visitors/month.
I have knowledge on WHM and CPanel only. How I can started with any ready made packages?
The reason my management changed the server is for better performance as current dedicated server is slower.
However, I guess the new server is installed on a VM..
Please guide.
The first thing you need to do is not move your Joomla site to a Windows server. The configuration of the server is critical to the performance of Joomla and you will have nagging issues until the end of time trying to run Joomla on Windows. It can be done, but it's a massive headache and there is absolutely no advantage to doing so. There are dozens of reputable hosting companies that have servers configured specifically to run Joomla optimally. Take a look at Rochen (I have over 50 sites on Rochen) or CloudAccess, both have official relationships with the Joomla project and both have very reasonable pricing.
Also, 10k visitors per month does not require a dedicated server unless all of those users are on simultaneously running SQL query heavy apps. You could easily run a site that size on a managed virtual server and have no performance issues at all. I've got sites with hundreds of thousands of monthly visitors running on a single MVS with no issues at all.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to deploy my existing Laravel application in the Digital Ocean and this is my first time to go live. I'm choosing droplets shared CPU $5/month my questions are.
Is $5/month is exactly the amount that I will pay for the monthly bill?. If my application is online/accessible forever do I still get to pay $5/month?.
As stated above that I'm using the Laravel framework, can I ssh in the server and install dependencies without a problem?, also can I change the PHP version in the server?.
Please help me this is my first time and I have no idea what to choose if shared or dedicated CPU'S.
Note: My Laravel application is only for my personal use.
Here is my screenshots.
Thank you in advance.
Yes, that is the price that you will pay each month unless you turn on features like automatic backup and etc. which add up a couple of extra $.
You can, however, get billed more if you go over the droplets outbound data transfer. Check it here. But since you said it's only for your personal use, no worries there.
Yes, you can ssh into your server and install whatever you need on it (composer, database, PHP libs).
For every package, you are still billed hourly up to the end of the month which roughly equates to the price on that screenshot. That means that you can play around with your droplet, see how it works, and if you change your mind, you can always delete it, and only be billed for the number of hours that you used it.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Its about a long time that I'm asking my self this question but I've never had a truly response. Most of time people tell that it depend on the language and the usage of the website.
From now I'm using a sharing hosting from OVH but I would want to know if hosting my website with dockers on a VPS isn't a better idea ?
I'm talking about the performances (loading time, ect.), would it be faster on a VPS or a dedicated server ? Not really a price problem.
Most of my website are in Php/JS (Laravel).
Thanks for your answer!
Shared Hosting means that others peoples sites runs in same virtual machine with yours. It's cheapest solution for smaller projects. But when other's page on that shared hosting hits hight traffic your page gets slow down as well.
Virtual Private Server means that you have your own machine but it's only virtual. It's good solution for bigger projects, like e-shops and some sites that hits some serious traffic.
Dedicated Server means that you have your own server and you can do whatever you want there (create smaller virtual servers or run without virtualization). It's also most expensive solution.
Some more details here
So answer to your question is VPS should be faster. But shared hosting can be fine as well. Personally i have several project that don't hit much traffic on a shared hosting and them run just good.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'll try to be as brief as possible;
My page load time increased 40% and I don't know why, in the atttached image you have the before and after loading times, plus the waterfall view for both the first and the repeated view.
The setup: LNMP VPS, opcache, memcache, joomla with T3 framework template, using joomla file caching
I did the following changes (unfortunately I didn't think about testing after each individual change):
-upgraded to the latest joomla, template, and template engine
-compressed images
-upgraded to PHP 7 (from 5.6)
-everything else is the same, including using the same server for testing and having the same server load
The only explanation I can come up with is that the provider is overloading their servers, making my VPS slower.
Please feel free to write any insight/ideas you have.
Thanks!
Screenshots from webpagetest.org
After extensive testing on various other platforms, using the same setup (I even copy-pasted the config files for php, php-fpm, mysql, etc) I found out that the issue was the hosting company which seems to be overselling.
Using different but identically specced hosting the page now has a first view load time of ~0,9s.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm a Web Developer and Backend Architect. As a Developer I need Web Hosting to run and deploy my code. Normal Web hosting plans don't offer flexibility, they're focused on simplicity and ease of use for normal/non-tech people. However, I need full stack hosting, a server where I have full control. Where I can install my necessary and preferred software, run my own programs like I do in my own PC. I have seen dedicated hosting, VPS hosting, cloud servers and I don't know which one actually fits my needs.I'll be happy if someone gives me some guidance.
Thank you,
Abraar
I suggest you to use http://aws.amazon.com/pt/ bcz:
Price - have free plans that help you in development process and paid plans are not expensive
Structure - You can configure everything, machine, server configuration, OS, DNS and more.
Technologies - Most Hosts have limitations and you cant configure permissions in server. AWS use a separated structure that let you set your configurations without limitations.
Well, this is my point. I tested and worked with so many hosts and i realize that AWS is the best.
Dedicated hosting is not necessary because it cost is very high.
If you need a fixed server eg:4gp ram, 2 core processor and centos.
you can go for VPS Hosting you can get help in this link VPS
Help.
If you want to pay for what you use you should go for cloud servers.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
We have many IIS7.5 web servers which require support from different departments and we would like to avoid giving away too many privileges to certain user groups (security groups in Active Directory).
We would like to take a backup of the IIS configuration, store it in one location for all servers and allow those support units to read/view the configuration instead of accessing the IIS administrative tools directly from each server.
I was thinking of Metabase Explorer which used to be available for IIS 6.0 in Resource Kit. Is there something similar that users can install to their workstations to view the IIS config from different servers?
Or is there a better way to give a security group read only access to IIS configuration on servers?
http://www.iis.net/configreference
Simply copy the applicationHost.config file (along with other XML files necessary). Metabase Explorer is obsolete and should be avoided to be used against IIS 7 and above.
IIS 7 and above does introduce better remote administration support, which you can learn from http://www.iis.net/learn/manage/remote-administration/configuring-remote-administration-and-feature-delegation-in-iis-7
Please treat it seriously as a brand new product, or your IIS 6 knowledge might mislead you.