Whatever you plan to do, I would definitely give CrystalTech a heads up about your expected traffic spike. They might be able to give you a good suggestion, and if they can't, at least they won't be caught blindsided and just unplug you or something unpleasant. Hosts tend to get cranky when the other 50 sites hosted on your server all call at once to yell at them because you didn't warn them about your expected load increase.
-Cameron On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:18:25 -0400, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've a site that while not slow, is most likely not going to take the traffic > it's facing. The site is www.firstnight.org - it will get absolutely pounded > on New Year's Eve. > > Since this will be the warnest New Year's Eve in recent memory AND is a > weekend AND is a holiday for nearly everybody now I fully expect this to be > one of the busiest years ever. > > Unfortunately we're still a non-profit. We can't afford the kind of iron > that this kind of traffic would require for only one or two days a year. > Right now we're on a shared hosting plan at CrystalTech which we nearly > overran last year. > > I'm just going through and looking for savings here. > > 1) An average page runs anywhere from 80-300 ticks. I plan to address some > of that by caching the navigation HTML (right now it's dynamically generated > from a cached CFC). > > What do you think? Too high? Way too high? Way, way too high? > > Many of the pages are quite large and complex (for example the "All Events" > list here: > http://www.firstnight.org/Content/NewYears/Artists/Explore/Events.cfm?Type=All > ) but it's exactly those pages that are the most popular. > > As an aside, you can see the current number of active sessions and the > current page's tick count at the bottom of any page. > > 2) My session manager is worrying me. The site doesn't use CFs built in > Session management. This allows me to capture user information at the end of > a session, but means that I have to manually check and destroy sessions. > When a session ends it's saved in a database along with the pages viewed > during the visit, information about the user agent and several other things. > > This process requires several database calls (perhaps a minimum of 8, but a > maximum determined by the number of pages visited) and averages in the range > of 40-80 ticks per session cleaned. > > That would be fine, except I may be cleaning several thousand sessions at a > shot on the 31st. The system is SQL Server and I've optimized it about as > much as I know how (there are indexes on the major columns, I've cleaned out > all unneeded data, etc). > > Any thoughts on using multiple CFQuery statements vrs one more complex SQL > call? Right now, for example, I make a call to the DB to see if the session > already exists, if it does I do an update, if not I do an insert. > > Could it actually be faster to do an IF statement in the SQL using only one > CFQUERY tag? It seems to me that with "maintain connections" on this > wouldn't make a difference... but I'm not sure (and want to use the time I've > left wisely). > > I am using CFQUERYPARAM and caching what queries make sense. > > Some other thoughts: > > I've actually considered placing some of the site on another CrystalTech > account (on a different server of course) and using redirects to move the > traffic off. Of course there's no way I could get the URLs to stay the same > (outside of frames) and I wouldn't want it there all the time - just for a > day or two. > > It would also royally screw up my log statistics. > > Any other ideas for kludgy, cheap load balancing? > > I can easily turn off the end-of-session handlers. I know that this process > will take a while, but I'm not sure if it's really the performance hog that I > fear. It is, after all, spending nearly all of it's time waiting for the > database - sitting effectly idle. So what if the clean up process takes two > minutes if the thread isn't dominating the CPU? (I will also decrease the > number of clean-ups to one every 15 minutes or so in an attempt to clear out > old sessions as quickly as possible.) > > Many (sometimes VERY many) of the sessions in memory are generated from bots. > I'm considering creating a ROBOTS.TXT that would prevent bots from indexing > the site for our busy time, but I fear that would inhibit them more than I > want - if you tell robot's to bugger off do they come back? > > I'm open to any other ideas. My gut says that with the resources we have > we'll just have to live with overloads unless they want to create a much > simpler site (and they don't want to do that). > > Anybody got some heavy iron and bandwidth they're willing to donate for three > days a year. ;^) > > Sorry for the babbling - I'm entering my normal end-of-year paranoid phase. > > Jim Davis > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188879 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
