I had a website providing a widget. The widget contains a simple javascript that is embedded in third party websites. The problem is that my current hosting provider suspended my account because the images usage was really high and took too many resources from that server(despite the fact that I had unlimited bandwidth).
I would like to know if there is some cheap solution to host only static content. I don’t need large storage but I need sufficient bandwidth.
Have you tried godaddy?
Well, what do you consider “cheap” hosting? That could also help us.
If this widget is downloaded by a lot of websites, you will be in trouble with any host, unlimited of not. Without a good caching system, the high number of requests is likely to cause a high strain on the server due to input output.
So, rather than just mark the host as a villain, in the interest of self preservation, you should look more into the matter. How much traffic (not bandwidth, but hits) was your account receiving, average and peaks?
Some people are able to push a lot of static data usign a small VPS optimised for the task, using nginx etc.
This is what I’m interested in. Currently I have a problem with the static content. I was using a shared godaddy account only for the static content. The widget is loaded about 90 000 / day. For each widget request 10-20 images should be loaded each time. The images are pretty small so size should not represent a problem. The static content should be cached on the browser so I assume the images requests should decrease.
On one side I understand the concerns of the hosting providers that they want to share their resources to satisfy all their clients. On another side I hate those greedy hosting providers who push as many clients on a single machine and suspend those who just have a decent traffic amount.
First of all I would like to know if a shared hosting should be able to support the requests of 90 000 * 20 / day of small images.
If not what other options I could use.
Where the images full size or where they thumbnails?
I believe if you had VPS server - small one - you would not have had such problems. So maybe that is right time to switch?
Hi,
That’s potentially over 54m requests per month - I can’t think of any shared hosting company that would be happy with that to be honest - unless you were paying them a lot of money per month. It doesn’t really matter if they are 1KB images or 100KB images all that much, it’s down to the sheer volume of requests which have to be answered, logged and served, the logging alone will place quite a load on the system.
If you’re generally happy with your hosting then I’d leave that where it is and look at using a CDN for hosting the 20 images, high numbers of small requests are what CDNs are v. good at - as the more an item is requested then the more likely it is to be in the cache already. Not only that you get a big win for users - as if these are small sized images than the initial connection time is going to be a much larger %age of the overall download time than the actual transfer of the data - so if you shave 20ms off for example then you could be reducing that by 50% or more.
Thanks,
Thanks, I was paying $14/month at godaddy for a shared hosting with unlimited bandwith. As I see now I have 2 options: VPS configured for static content(nginx instead of apache) or CDN. The images I have are simple thumbnails, not very big.
Hi,
Personally, unless you’re getting a fully managed VPS or you know how to maintain a server I’d go down the CDN route - it’s going to cope with spikes in demand which you’re unlikely to know about in advance if you’re hosting a widget that gets used on other peoples sites, whereas a VPS isn’t, it’s going to be limited by the resources it has available to it until such time you can increase them - which means slow responses, even downtime or crashing - which can cause database corruption etc. Also if your content loads slow then that impacts on the overall load time of your customer sites - which isn’t going to make them happy.
Thanks,
How VPS performs better. could anyone explain me here.
You will find lots of cheap webhosting companies as they reselling the main ones. I would recommend you to sign up with some good webhosting company. I have been with bluehost for past one year and i never had any issues. I can register a new domain for just $10. I can host unlimited domains. So its very cheap as i can get a complete new website for just $10.
I agree with Karl. A CDN seems to be the perfect solution. As others have said the HTTP requests for each image are probably what’s causing the high load.
Jack
I would recommend a managed VPS. Anyways, hqhost.net offers nice plans for static websites. There are many other like bluehost, hostgator, hostmonster etc so you may read review about them and if possible go for a trail of some selected host and experience yourself for the better judgment as per your requirements.
I second hqhost.net for static content.
Or a small vps with nginx, very small memory consumption, with logs disabled will be using just cpu.
If not that you said you need huge bandwidth, a shared package would have been best. You may need to get a small VPS plan.
today we have end number of websites which are now dynamic.it means the websites provide server side scripting to access the page.
<snip/>
Hostpolar.com has good shared hosting servers - and fast too. Good for any “static” site. I’m using the $5/month plan right now - and no lag issue. I do 1k daily visits with 10k+ pageviews/day