Home > Programming, Servers & Scripts > Hosting, Servers & Security

---

Tuning your server for Prosper202 (33)

---

I want to make sure my server is optimally tuned to run P202 as fast as possible. The only thing I was able to find on P202's site is this page (http://prosper.tracking202.com/apps/about/requirements/) which says you should have...

- a dedicated server
- memcache installed
- MySQL 5 .1 and PHP 5.0 or greater
- mod_rewrite Apache module

I already have all those, but wanted to see if Nana or any of the other P202 experts on this board have additional advice to get every last bit of performance out of P202...

Thanks.

---

You want to make sure mysql is taking advantage of the systems unused ram. You want to use some sort of php operations code cache to reduce the overhead of the tracker processing.

You will also want to archive your data once you have more than a million clicks to another install as this frees up the query cache tables in mysql.

Also avoid using apache, if you must crank up its allowed connections and workers.

For the server make sure whatever your hosting on has at least 10k sas drives to reduce io latency. If your with us that is already covered.

---

This ^ (IMHO: If you don' want to use our hosted T202 service, then BH is the way to go)

The other optimizations I have is new code specific to our hosted T202. Still very hard to say if it will make it into the free open source P202.

---

Oh go on - put it in the free version

---

Would love to, but also have to make sure my future kids can eat and go to college. lol

BTW: I'm still thinking about it, so it's not a no yet.

---

I believe a lot of people out there wouldn't mind a PAID p202 (self-hosted one) with all the latest and newest functions to be added in it.

I still remember you once said a line... "the Prosper202 that I'm developing will make the current one like a clown".

---

If not Apache then what? LiteSpeed?

---

Yes that's what we recommend.

---

Swap MySQL to MariaDB. It's a direct replacement over MySQL but it performs better and has better scalability. You will thank yourself for swapping when you start pushing a lot of traffic and you'll notice that MySQL doesn't scale all that well without huge tuning & tweaking & developing effort.

---

I'm already using MariaDB, how well it can scale ? not sure how to scale espeically on the database side.

---

Interesting, never heard about MariaDB , looks like a good option.

Anyone else using it?

---

Be interested to hear Tylers opinion on this

---

The thing is that MariaDB uses and has been tuned for XtraDB from Percona as a storage engine. And when it comes to scaling MySQL, Percona is pretty much the authority. When 37Signals needed help with MySQL, they called Percona. When Facebook needed consultation about scaling MySQL, they called Percona. Long story short, those guys know their shit

---

At $370/hr I'd sure hope so. I've only talked to them once.

---

My vote for a webserver would be Nginx(Engine X).

---

I guess it might be because the company is going to save a quite a bit of more money than few hundred/thousand bucks if they can get their existing stack to scale or perform better Personally I don't understand why you would choose MySQL for anything else than an application that absolutely, positively requires "real-time" confirmation that the transaction was successfully saved, like for example financial industry. Building a tracking software with MySQL is asking for trouble plus you lose the ability to crunch the data when you grow bigger.

---

nginx is good at being used as a proxy for socket things but its poor for managing php processing. The timeouts and posting of large files is a pain.

I vote LS, that's why we sell it.

---

Care to expand on that? I haven't been seeing any issues with nginx. I don't have a cpanel requirement though. Maybe that's the cause? I'm really interested in any data/articles you have on this.

---

nginx vs litespeed

http://spacevs.blogspot.com/2012/01/...litespeed.html

---

LS is a drop in for cPanel it makes life super easy for us and our customers.

LS has caching abilitys but you need to buy the 1 CPU or greater license depending on your needs. It has php operations code caching out of the box without the need for zend/e/ion/apc. Again, you need to size it accordingly, just installing LS and assuming its going to be the fastest option is now true.


Without information on how LS was configured and what license they were using this is a irrelevant and worthless article.

---

Ya so is your answer.

I asked about your claim on nginx timing out and you just blast other comments and spit out useless info. Reread my post, I don't care about cpanel. From your answer it seems like you went with lightspeed because its the easiest to use with cpanel. Makes me question how much you actually tested nginx before you started ripping it. I'm not trying to be a nginx fanboy, I'm trying to learn and you claim your the best so again I ask do you have any data to backup your claim on nginx?

---

How often server-related threads tend toward flame wars lol! Also, not to pick sides, but if someone who runs a performance hosting company says things about nginx vs apache vs litespeed etc. we shouldn't expect them to go out of their way to throw up a nice chart for us to ogle - it's likely they've done significant internal testing and have opinions which are moulded by experience and data. At least I'd hope so.

---

Not to pick sides either but youre talking about a company that has invested in certain solution so do you expect them to give you objective answer?

The fact is that Nginx is about as fast as you can get and I can guarantee that the performance bottleneck is not going to be the server software with Nginx - most likely it will be PHP. And going with xcache or apc is going to take you only so far. If you want true speed, you go with Java, C or if you want to trade some speed for development speed, NodeJS.

---

Here is my 2 cent, when your redirect slow down, upgrade to a better hardware for your tuned vps or server, don't be stingy, if you install a varnish cache in front of nginx , it is even speedier when the cache configured to serve from memory

---

I don't have to justify anything to you. This isn't a pissing contest, you should do your own research and do a report comparing the two.

Thanks Zeno, indeed we have spent a TON of time testing different solutions and configurations. Out of the box Litespeed beats every other solution hands down across the board. Were not software specific here, we guarantee LS will work great with EVERYTHING and not once have we ever had a customer unhappy with our deployment. Some of our most high volume customers track porn impression and not one of them is on nginx. Those guys are tracking 60-180 million impressions a day without a hitch!


This only applys to static content, and you should be using a CDN anyway :-)

We clearly did our research before we invested into a paid software solution, it would be irresponsible and stupid not to.

Nginx is a proxy solution, if your looking for fast you should look into HAProxy, don't expect to serve files with it though. And yes php will always be a bottleneck, but LS implements op code caching so you don't have to use APC or xCache, which are not supported with all software.

---

I never started a pissing contest you did. Ya I said your answer sucked, and if you look back it did. I asked about nginx you reply about cpanel. I never claimed nginx is better, nor am I bashing your company, I simply said I haven't had a problem with nginx but would like to learn more.

You are the server expert right? Makes sense I would ask the server expert a server question right? Makes sense that server expert would be able to talk about servers. Guess I'm wrong.

---

Sure he didn't really answer your question about nginx/timeouts etc., but your reply changed the tone of the conversation. Maybe you should re-read your own reply, where instead of politely asking for more info and restating your question, you started implying his incompetence. Such is forum behaviour.

---

Leber, I've started to generate a few benchmarks on some nginx vs ls setups. I'll post a report on here whenever I get to it.

@Zeno, thanks for the assurance :-)

---

All I have to say about nginx is good luck getting SSL working for more than one domain on Windows XP with any version of IE using only a single ip address. i.e. SNI

http://www.carloscastillo.com.ar/201...n-same-ip.html

---

I believe we've done it by using multiple IP.

---

Yeah, that's what I do too. Wildcard certs are a little too expensive.

---

Looking forward to seeing them. Thanks!

---

I remember that line too, haha.

---

Home > Programming, Servers & Scripts > Hosting, Servers & Security