What can an 128MB RAM VPS (OpenVZ, SSD HDD) serve?

MichaelBui

I'm going to run some websites (SF2-based) on my VPS from @ramnode:

• 128MB RAM (128MB swap)
• SSD HDD

How many concurrent users you think that VPS can serve?
(I know the answer will depends on the complexity of the code but I just want a rough estimation). Thanks a lot!

arieonline

concurrent users?
8-10 maybe

logixmedia

It all depends on which web server your using.. If your using Nginx you can serve more requests....

cfgguy

If possible use mem cache it will improve site performance

JerryHou

http://lowendbox.com/blog/yes-you-can-run-18-static-sites-on-a-64mb-link-1-vps/
http://lowendbox.com/blog/xenvz-99-pence-openvz-vps-quick-review/

jcaleb

said: How many concurrent users you think that VPS can serve?

depends how you will configure and set it up

FrankZ

@MichaelBuiA - 128MB VPS from different providers can provide very different results. Good news is Ramnode runs some extremely good low ram VPS nodes. The results you get will depends on what you run on it. If you going to be steaming (SF2) then concurrent connections was the correct question to ask. To test it just set up your site and open browser tabs and stream to each. Then see how much RAM that each concurrent connection uses in the VPS.



Disclaimer: I have a RamNode 256MB VPS in Seattle that gets about 100,000 hits a day on an apache web server, no mysql, and never runs out of RAM.

MichaelBui

I have setup an website using Apache2, CakePHP and used ab to benchmark it:

ab -n 50 -c 25 http://www.itlized.com/

This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $>
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/

Benchmarking www.itlized.com (be patient).....done


Server Software:        Apache/2.2.22

Server Hostname:        www.itlized.com

Server Port:            80

Document Path:          /

Document Length:        13022 bytes

Concurrency Level:      25

Time taken for tests:   29.124 seconds

Complete requests:      50

Failed requests:        0

Write errors:           0

Total transferred:      661650 bytes

HTML transferred:       651100 bytes

Requests per second:    1.72 [#/sec] (mean)

Time per request:       14561.913 [ms] (mean)

Time per request:       582.477 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

Transfer rate:          22.19 [Kbytes/sec] received

Connection Times (ms)

              min  mean[+/-sd] median   max

Connect:      198  208   5.6    207     220

Processing:  5324 11525 3148.3  12066   16027

Waiting:      307 6515 3148.5   7059   11011

Total:       5523 11732 3152.0  12273   16242

Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)

  50%  12273

  66%  13309

  75%  13551

  80%  14531

  90%  16097

  95%  16220

  98%  16242

  99%  16242

 100%  16242 (longest request)

How do you guys think about the above result?

tchen

I have a test rig setup there with varnish serving directly from memory. At best, AB concurrency on a page is 80 without the server starting to drag on requests (into the 100ms). So assuming firefox's 6 requests/server... 13 concurrent real users by that definition at least.

The biggest problem you'll face is the single CPU. If you have php fpm, and rely on that exclusively to serve content, you're probably going to lock yourself out far far lower.

x0054

Use Nginx, you will be able to server to hundreds of users static content. Dynamic content depends on complexity of code and the server/client programming split. If you offload most of the interactive stuff to JS, and only run the bare minimum of commits on the server, then you can also serve hundreds of users.

You'll probably struggle running the standard LAMP, mainly because MySQL and Apache are RAM hungry in my experience.

MichaelBui

How about MongoDB instead of MySQL