Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
May I use CDN for whole website (PHP, Apache, MySQL) or just for images and CSS, JS files?
What's the best choice > cloud-hosting or dedicated-hosting? Does CDN has that support?
Witch hosting you suggest me the best - the fastest, stablest 100% uptime, CDN, not expensive at all?
CDN hosting is purely for static content only - it is never advised to host a dynamic application on CDN.
CDN is a content delivery network - your hosting company has edge servers on various locations across the globe. Job of these edge servers is to cache your content and deliver to your clients. If edge server doesn't have cached your content, they pull these content from the source server and deliver to your visitor. If they have cached copy, they deliver that immediately. This cache is usually refreshed every 12 hours - it varies host by host.
Since edge servers deliver cached copy, it is never advised to host dynamic websites on CDN Hosting.
Question:
What's the best choice? cloud-hosting or dedicated-hosting? Does CDN
has that support?
Answer:
Cloud hosting is superior by infrastructure. It has redundant array of disk drives and processors. You will enjoy almost 100% uptime on Cloud hosting.
Question:
Witch hosting you suggest me the best - the fastest, stablest 100%
uptime, CDN, not expensive at all?
Answer: From my professional experience, CDN hosting is the fastest, Cloud hosting is stable and 100% uptime and VPS Hosting is not expensive. If you want to make a choice of of these three, Cloud hosting is stable and cost-effective.
From the way the question was phrased, I think managed hosting would be most appropriate for your application.
It is fairly unlikely that you will run into any performance issues that are not self-inflicted (say, by writing suboptimal database queries, performing database processing in the frontend etc) unless you have a significant advertising budget and a mass market application, in which case you should also have a mid-sized IT department that can roll a custom solution.
Weighing cost and reliability against each other can be left to the accountants, for the most part.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
We are planning to host one web app which uses multiple resources like banner images, videos, pdf and they need to be changed by time. If we package those resources in app, app size will get increased and in every change we need to repackage and redeploy.
So we have planned to have aws S3 and cloudFront cdn for serving all static web content and we can use them in application.
Please suggest pros and cons of our architecture and other possible ways of achieving it.
Yes. AWS S3 is indeed a very good choice for hosting your static assets.
As stated by AWS itself :
S3 is a highly durable, highly available, and inexpensive object
storage service that can serve stored objects directly via HTTP. This
makes it wonderfully useful for serving static web content directly to
web browsers for sites on the Internet.
What does your "app" do? Is it just to display static content? Or does it have a solid backend?
Since it is unclear, to get started, here is a wonderful resource from the official AWS site :
https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/projects/build-modern-app-fargate-lambda-dynamodb-python/
They have clearly explained how to host your static content and structure your web app.
The pros of using AWS S3 are that it's really cheap, easy to use and configure.
Cons are ,IF you are just hosting static content, you will be charged for it.Why not use Github pages? It's entirely free!
You could use Azure Blob storage. You may store any file format and it can be secured with a security token for restricted access. It scales without limit and is considered a best practice for large volume web traffic. Hope it helps.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have roughly 600 static images that I need to store and use for my web app and I was wondering what kind of options I have for this application.
What is the typical procedure?
What are my options, and what are the pro's and con's of each?
Thanks ahead of time.
You should store static resources that you want to serve from your site somewhere under the wwwroot folder. I recommend putting them in an images subfolder, but you can use whatever organization works for you. There are many reasons why it can be worthwhile to use a Content Delivery Network (CDN) for serving your static resources, including scripts, stylesheets, and images, in which case you might want to store your images there. For example Amazon CloudFront is an inexpensive CDN service you can use for this purpose. This will speed up your page load times since the images will load in parallel with your site's assets, it will reduce load on your server, and the CDN server will host the images on edge servers that are geographically close to the client (so clients on the other side of the world from your server will get the files faster than if they loaded them from your server).
Overall this isn't so much an ASP.NET Core question, but a general web site question. ASP.NET Core will serve static resources (as long as you have the static files middleware installed), but other than that it doesn't have a lot to do with it. Just put the files under wwwroot and you're good to go unless you think it's worth using a CDN.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
My situation is as follows. I've a reasonably fast website that hosts around 200,000 images. I'm as of now using these images without any problem (reasonably fast image loading) and displaying it on my website. But now, I realise that I have an option to download all these 200,000 onto my local server using a small python script. I could also upload these 200,000 images onto a cloud, CDN.
I've seen famous websites like google request their data from a separate domain and most probably a separate server.
So my question is this. Which is the best way to store a large number of image files for fastest delivery on my webpage. Is it on a local server, a external server or a strategically placed server like what CDNs do? Because, I'm under the impression right now that data is transfer ed within the server fastest and hence it would be best to have it on my local server.
The term fastest depends on so many factors like
Region of server located
Bandwidth of server and user
Server RAM Size & Hard Disk read/write speed
When having same features comparing to cloud,cdn,local
I choose cloud because reliability of cloud is better than local
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm friends with an owner of a small creative business (with multiple departments) and until now they have been using a dedicated server (via a 3rd party) for a lot of internal projects and they've been known to iframe a few small dev projects (like photo galleries, one page sites etc...) off and on for some of their clients (some with hi traffic sites).
They're looking to switch from the dedicated server to a cloud environment. The owner is enamored with amazon's cloud services, but still wanted some alternative options they also want the new environment to mirror the current one as much as possible (linux/centOS, PHP 5.3, mysql databases) but with the ability to scale when desired.
So the misconceptions I need cleared up and questions I have are:
1) I always assumed amazon's cloud service was more suitable for high end high traffic complex web application (Netflix, pinterest, instagram etc...) rather than the typical server use listed above. Is this correct?
2) Is it possible to mirror their current setup on amazon?
3) If number 1 is not true, but they instead chose rackspace, could they run heavy web apps like Netflix, pinterest, instagram on a rackspace cloud server if they ever decided to do something that advanced (is rackspace scaleable in the same way ec2 is)?
1) Amazon AWS is also suitable for this environment, or even smaller ones (they offer instances as small as "Micro", which are far less capable than what you are describing all the way up to GPU compute clusters).
2) Yes. That is a very common setup for an AWS-based solution. In fact, I recently migrated something similar from Rackspace to AWS.
3) #1 is true. However, you can certainly mix what runs on Rackspace and in the AWS cloud. Keep in mind latency and security issues if the two component solutions need to communicate with each other. Rackspace also has a cloud offering, but it is not as mature as Amazons.
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I went to GoDaddy.com for hosting. They have menus like
1)website hosting
2)grid hosting
what is the difference between the two. I am new to this hosting and webapps stuff..
Grid hosting usually means that the web space you rent is not located on one (potentially shared) machine, but is more like a "virtual machine" (think VMware) which is hosted on a cluster of servers (a grid).
While resources on a single machine are limited and might run out, especially if it's a shared host and you have to share your resources (memory, bandwidth) with potentially hundreds or thousands of other users who are hosted on the same machine as you, grid hosting is more flexible, as your virtual website could leverage resources from more machines in the cluster if necessary. This of course also increases reliability of the website, as the failure of one grid node doesn't matter, another server takes over, while the failure of your dedicated or shared host takes your website offline.
I would assume that they refer to the single machine as "website hosting".
Update
GoDaddy has an FAQ about their grid hosting, which should answer all additional questions you might have.
A reply from Godaddy Support:
Please be advised while there is unlimited compute cycles for site server and not for database.
From wikipedia: Grid Computing | Cloud Computing. I haven't seen 'grid hosting' as a common phrase, but it could be taken to mean using one of the earlier two concepts to host a website in a scalable manner.
However, if godaddy is offering 'grid hosting' I suspect they're offering to grid computing to you in such a way that has nothing to do with hosting a website. They're offering to sell you large amounts of processor power with low communication requirements, as opposed to selling you web hosting which is typically high communication requirements with low processing requirements (relative to one another of course)
Grid computing is a collection of computing resources from multiple locations to reach in a common location. Grid is also called distributed system.it is similar to a VPS but generally has more storage then VPS Servers.
Grid Hosting is a form of distributed hosting is when a server cluster acts like a grid and is composed of multiple nodes.
Currently, various hosting service types are available..you can find details for them from here..
From above these, you can select your desired hosting provider and type.