crossovernetwork
Active member
My webhost has a maximum number of MySQL connections it will allow (25).
Is this enough to run XenForo properly?
Is this enough to run XenForo properly?
How many MySQL connections?
- Thread starter crossovernetwork
- Start date
Well, each page will use a connection. The connection will be closed when the request is done. So generally you'll be ok, even with a big site. But there can be moments where multiple concurrent requests will be running (particularly if the site is bogged down).
Ideally, you wouldn't want limits beyond the entire MySQL connection pool, though that may not be reasonable.
Ideally, you wouldn't want limits beyond the entire MySQL connection pool, though that may not be reasonable.
crossovernetwork
Active member
Ok, thanks. The reason I'm asking is that I've been having a number of problems with my existing site - vB4.0.3 with hostgator, where I'm getting "too many connection error" emails from the address specfied in my config.php, I've had batches of them at exactly 24hr intervals. 
Dean
in memoriam
We had Hostgator using an almost stock vb3.8 install. We did ok with max # of connections until we reached 80-100 people all trying to re-load a popular thread one day.Ok, thanks. The reason I'm asking is that I've been having a number of problems with my existing site - vB4.0.3 with hostgator, where I'm getting "too many connection error" emails from the address specfied in my config.php, I've had batches of them at exactly 24hr intervals.
xf seems quite fast to me.
crossovernetwork
Active member
Any in particular you'd recommend, Floris?
D
Deleted member 2163
Guest
If you don't mind being hosted in the US, I heartily recommend Media Temple's dedicated virtual (dv) servers.
The cheapest one is $50/mo but I've been with them over 2 years and haven't had a single problem. My current uptime is 474d 8h 17m as of this post (thanks, iStat!). The only reason it isn't higher is because I was messing with the server 474d ago
If there's a UK equivalent, obviously go with them... but Media Temple rocks
The cheapest one is $50/mo but I've been with them over 2 years and haven't had a single problem. My current uptime is 474d 8h 17m as of this post (thanks, iStat!). The only reason it isn't higher is because I was messing with the server 474d ago
If there's a UK equivalent, obviously go with them... but Media Temple rocks
I do not miss the joys of shared hosting. Once you can afford to get a dedicated box you really should.
I use singlehop now and they are fantastic. I've gone through about 5 different servers in the last year or so as we kept outgrowing our servers and they have been the best by far. We've had to cap our mysql connections to 450 or so to manage it and we occasionally overrun that still.
I use singlehop now and they are fantastic. I've gone through about 5 different servers in the last year or so as we kept outgrowing our servers and they have been the best by far. We've had to cap our mysql connections to 450 or so to manage it and we occasionally overrun that still.
HannahP
Well-known member
This:
Because you are just one user on a server with potentially hundreds of users. All sharing the same CPU, all sharing the same RAM, all sharing the same HDD, and all sharing the same Bandwidth. If one of them uses poorly and insecure coded software, they might cause the server to get hacked, they might cause the server to crawl to its knees. Taking your site with it.
is not always the case. Windows servers can run sites in isolated application pools, so your neighbor on the server cannot monopolize resources and affect your site. Similarly any good shared host is using separate file servers such as NetApps, so the idea that all sites on a shared hosting server run on the same HDD or cluster of drives is old school thinking.
So, yeah. Shared hosting isn't dead, nor will it ever be dead. There are too many cheap, err - budget conscious - consumers in the world. And there always will be.
Oh, by the way, 1999 called; they want their idea of shared hosting back.
Also note that many cheap "dedicated servers" are VPS, which come with their own share of serious drawbacks.
Forsaken
Well-known member
That depends where you're hosted as well; I know many companies that have started offering old-style VPS (As mjp said, they use dedicated cpu, ram, and hd per account) as developer packages, and they're generally cheaper then a VPS, the only failing is you do not have root.
I've hosted large sites that got DDoSed every few days on a developer package, and it was a medium sized website.
HannahP
Well-known member
Of course. Which is why you can't make a blanket statement like "shared hosting is dead," or "shared hosting is no good for a forum."
25 concurrent connections is plenty for the vast majority of sites/forums out there. When KD says it's enough for a "small site," he's talking about you. About most of his potential customers. The large forums are the minority, and they deal with a whole different set of issues and they probably don't need hosting advice. I think you do a disservice to someone who is just starting out if you convince them to spend way more money than necessary on a server for a forum that will, statistically anyway, probably fail.
Not to mention the fact that most normal humans are not qualified to be web (or mail or database) server administrators. I see increasing evidence of that every day as more and more people buy into the notion that they need a dedicated server and make a horrifying mess of it (and end up having to pay loan shark-like hourly rates to someone to fix it). It's like telling someone who is just learning to ride a bicycle that they really need to go buy a Hayabusa if they are serious about traveling on two wheels. They're just going to kill themselves. Or at the very least, throw away an assload of money.
matthewalan
Active member
I may not be extremely serious about my hosting, but I do want a reliable host. And I've been on a cheap(yes. cheap.) hosting package for like a year now and the only problems I had was with a software that kept screwing up my database(it was only a pre-alpha software at the time). So there is absolutely nothing wrong with shared hosting as I can't justify spending more money on hosting that I need to. Since I got rid of the problemsome software I've had no downtime(as far as i know). Saying that anyone who wants to take their community serious needs to get a better host is almost insulting considering what I have is absolutely perfect for what I need it for, and since I don't have money to blow on a "better host".
Chromaniac
Well-known member
well i have been through a lot of ****e when it comes to hosting. i started on a cheap shared account. had to migrate from one place to another once the site(s) became popular. then i switched to a vps. vps phase was the shortest.
migrated to a cheap dedicated. then to two cheap dedicated!. eventually. ended up on a dedicated. have gone through several dedicateds in the last couple of years ranging from a P4 to a quad core to now dual quad care. and i am currently at a phase where even this server does not prove enough. could be rogue scripts or could be just traffic.
the fact remains, every user is unique. every site is unique. every setup is unique. whatever works for you is the best solution for you. i am still looking for that set up for myself!
migrated to a cheap dedicated. then to two cheap dedicated!. eventually. ended up on a dedicated. have gone through several dedicateds in the last couple of years ranging from a P4 to a quad core to now dual quad care. and i am currently at a phase where even this server does not prove enough. could be rogue scripts or could be just traffic.
the fact remains, every user is unique. every site is unique. every setup is unique. whatever works for you is the best solution for you. i am still looking for that set up for myself!
The difference between shared and semi-dedicated is the difference between £50 and £1,000.
I think I'll stick with shared for now.
Similar threads
- Question
- Solved
