New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
No.
pointless waste of money for shared hosting, it will be more useful if you do use for big project which required the CPU power (example: video encoding/decoding and processing it)
Why did you pick this CPU?
Keep in mind that the Phi cores are basically just Atom cores with wide SIMD units.
how are you going to use the CPU?
I was thinking about overselling cPanel with super cheap monthly plans and long ROI time. Colocating that with 100€ expenses/m.
not worth imo , you can find better (money on roi ) and older cpu 1/4 to 1/6 of the price
The issue with shared hosting is not that much the CPU or RAM. It's bandwidth.
If you went with that CPU, how many clients do you plan to host? How much bandwidth can each use?
According to GTMetrix, the average page size is 2.8MB. Thats ~22.4Mb. On a 1Gbps port, you would be able to push out ~45 of these requests per second, and that's not nearly enough if you host a large number of clients, something you'll have to do in order to have profit.
Maybe for a big company it would be somewhat worth it, easier to spread the load with cloudlinux, and they could put the users that barely use any bandwidth into the same big server.
The average page size is not 2.8 MB, that is the average initial load. In other words, the static assets such as css, js, images are what constitute most of this 2.8 MB. So, after the first page load your average page size will drop to 25-50KB since most of it will be cached.
So your 1 Gbps will be able to push more like 2500-6000 of these requests.
Your numbers are way out of what reality are.I would suggest to check those stats again and test them out , instead of assuming absurd stats.
... that kind of shows from his initial CPU choice. I guess he thinks more things concurrently slow in a mammoth
CPUseries of tubes will enable major loading onto one piece of hardware when it'd be cheaper to just start off with a handful of cheap kit.. you know, like Google does.Sure, if we are talking about repeat views, cache will come into play. If you refresh the page, thats about 25KB-50KB as you mentioned, but if you navigate to a new page with non-cached (yet) images, it will be a bit higher.
Also depending on the type of website, the rate of new visitors vs returning visitors does vary and is also important, but only expect websites such as forums to get a lot of returning visitors.
The Icing on the cake would be if you allowed unlimited bw, and some decide to host videos/movies.
Don't read any of the comments above, just go ahead and buy it and you can easily host 10,000 customers on it - do it the EIG style!
lmao
The very definition of putting all eggs in one basket.
I just watched a video regarding the Xeon Phi and in terms of shared hosting a consumer CPU (like an Intel i7 or AMD Ryzen) just stomps the Phi when it comes to performance. Even in things like neural network based tasks an E5-2690v4 is only half as slow (then again even the Phi is only a fraction of the speed of a single consumer GPU).
So yeah, you're better off hosting a cPanel server off a used Dell Optiplex than a custom built server with a Phi in it if you're looking for raw performance.
Still overkill, I had well over 1000 shared hosting clients on a dual core Atom with 2GB of RAM and single 7200 RPM drive without any issues. Loads under 1.00 and RAM usage under 75%.
You could buy an entire machine that was suitable for MANY clients on cPanel with the price of that CPU...
For hosting business better to have a few small server than one big server.