Cloaking and PPV (14)
I don't know where I read this, but somebody was suggesting that in PPV never cloaks because is going to make your page load slower...is that true? makes any difference to cloak or not in PPV in terms of speed?
What do you do in PPV...do you cloak or not?
What type of cloaking are you talking about?
Cloaking to blank the refer or cloaking to hide your LP from the PPV network?
cloaking with prosper202
basically check your hosting, some of the hosting configuration is slow, even the offer the same package
I prefer hosting with Nginx + xcache + php-fpm + varnish cache, it is a killer combination, apache ? nope yuck
Cloaking will slow down your redirection time.
On PPV , I would suggest cloaking only outbound links when you have a landing page.
The extra redirection time wont affect much since it was the user that clicked , so probably will wait the extra second.
Cloaking when direct linking is another story. I try to use it as less as possible.
it can be done.....with apache very easily with almost no performance hit at all.....no need to run all this "Nginx + xcache + php-fpm + varnish cache" crazy stuff if you don't want to....
people in these forums hate on apache but it aint all that bad.....you can do some cool stuff with it....and tune it abit for better performance with ppv
Lol , no hate on apache but from the way it's built it's performance will decrease exponentially with the rising of visitors.
Nginx was written with performance in mind ( so less bells and whistles ) and speed decreases linearly.
Nginx gives it's best in very high traffic situations.
Have a look at the benchmarks here :
http://remote-linux-support.com/blog...r-performance/
and here ( look at response time graphic ) :
http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/2008/...ce-deathmatch/
Only downside of nginx is that it has no cPanel ( or at least official version ) and lots of the optimizing has to be done from the command line.
on a standard setup yes that looks to be true.....but its like comparing a lexus(apache) with a subaru STI(nginx).....the STi is gonna tear the lexus up.....
BUT
you can strip apache down to nginx levels.....and it runs very close......
My only real point being is....apache is fine....in most cases....and has a tremendous amount of flexibility/support to it.....and is easy to use....
Yeah I agree.
If you dont do huge volume , a modded apache is still pretty good.
In my case , when doing 800k - 1mill views on PPV , switching from on optimized apache to nginx really made a change.
Anyway , this isn't the case with most people here.
There are far more important things to optimize than the server first.
Originally Posted by bbrock32
was curious though......did you see an improvement with direct linked stuff as well? or just your lp pops
I was running only landing pages at the time so dont know if that would have impacted direct linking as well.
Also another thing that made a big change was hosting images on my own server.
wow lots of good stuff here guys! thanks for your inside, it's getting a bit technical for a newbie like me 
I am using VPS from beyondhosting with prosper the Starter option: ( currently I am popping less than 10,000 pops a day)
http://beyondhosting.net/Virtual-Pri...2-VPS-Hosting/
Tyler the owner of Beyond H told me is enough the STARTER package for my case
Yeah , it should be good.
I think you have already nginx installed and if you do more volume Tyler can upgrade easily for you.
Hi guys, our hybrid is ran by Litespeed, I would say litespeed is about the same performance wise as nginx for most cases. Our customized nginx setup smokes everything and every providers configuration when you make it to our dedicated line.
Were pushing 1,000,000 pops an hour through CPVlab on our R610 (SSD Enabled) package without even breaking 2.0 load. Anyone doing that on a lesser setup PM me!
Home > Questions and Answers > Traffic Source Questions