Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    Is lowendtalk.com itself hosted in a low end box?
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    Is lowendtalk.com itself hosted in a low end box?

    elgselgs Member
    edited July 2015 in General

    I'm wondering whether a low end box we talk about here everyday is capably of hosting a website like this.

    «1

    Comments

    • Well, lowendspirit forums is hosted on a 64mb VPS.

      but, i doubt it.. It's probably on an E3, with a /16 assigned to it etc. Remember, this is Colocrossing we are talking about..

      VirtWire Global - APNIC Member

    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

      It used to be when it was at its peak and it managed really well, these days (for literally no good reason) it takes up a cluster of servers, which is bonkers and it runs worse.

      Why you say?

      Because apples.

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • blackblack Member

      I think LE(B/T) is hosted on a cluster of dedicated servers.

      Thanked by 2Droid 4n0nx
    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Top Provider

      black said: I think LE(B/T) is hosted on a cluster of dedicated servers.

      yep

      Thanked by 14n0nx

      Had enough of the scams on lowendbox, lowendtalk is now being infiltrated by corruption so I have chosen to make an low end exit #lexit for now - you can find me HERE

    • Considering the interests of the LE(B|T) community, it would be cool to host the sites on some LEBs.

      However, there's always a ton of drama which often attracts some trigger-happy DDOS folks.

      You can send your dogecoin "thanks" to: DNhnwKWR5vm8ddbWPpWfrpGR8atXH5ZFeP

    • ben78ben78 Member

      ... and quite some load to handle. Even if they wanted to host on a virtual machine iut couldn't be that low end...

    • ben78 said: ... and quite some load to handle. Even if they wanted to host on a virtual machine iut couldn't be that low end...

      it previously worked fine on 64MB but not many where happy when Chief sold out to cc

      I AM BACK :)
      Working Windows Server 2012 R2 on 6GB! Beat that!

    • FritzFritz Member

      I doubt LET is hosted on 64MB box.

      I'm Good!

    • On Raspberry pi clusters?

    • @BeardyUnixGuy said:
      Considering the interests of the LE(B|T) community, it would be cool to host the sites on some LEBs.

      owners dont give two shits about community interests

    • WilliamWilliam Member, Provider

      Not like CC is able to manage anything - So they just have some dedis running LEB/LET instead of optimizing it.

      Thanked by 24n0nx k0nsl
    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      lol

      Thanked by 14n0nx
    • wychwych Member

      @SysAdmin said:
      lol

      What is it hosted on these days?

      Taking a hiatus.

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      It runs on a cluster of 3 E3-1240 servers, of which it's load balanced between all three, plus two firewalls in an active / failover configuration.

      We can survive a failure of 2 application servers and one firewall before the site is down for any significant period of time.

      As far as it "running worse", I guess I'd have to know what people are talking about as it seems rather fast to me. There was a problem with email however that didn't have anything to do with the cluster.

      Thanked by 14n0nx
    • tr1ckytr1cky Member

      SysAdmin said: It runs on a cluster of 3 E3-1240 servers, of which it's load balanced between all three, plus two firewalls in an active / failover configuration.

      The site could be hosted on 2 7$ servers and would be as fast as it is now.
      One would also like know which firewall, as CloudFlare is in front and you can't filter IPs on a network-level then.

      tsdns.io - free, redundant, DDoS-protected TSDNS

    • J1021J1021 Member
      edited July 2015

      SysAdmin said: We can survive a failure of 2 application servers and one firewall before the site is down for any significant period of time.

      I have to give it you, I rarely see any downtime or problems from the LET website. /s

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      Thanks for the comment regarding the servers, I will certainly keep that in mind going forward and consider moving the site to two $7.00 VPSs.

      Thanked by 1BensDaMan
    • raindog308raindog308 Moderator

      SysAdmin said: It runs on a cluster of 3 E3-1240 servers, of which it's load balanced between all three, plus two firewalls in an active / failover configuration.

      So in this config where is the database?

      For LET support, please visit the interim support desk.

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      On the application servers in their own respective containers.

    • @tr1cky said:
      One would also like know which firewall, as CloudFlare is in front and you can't filter IPs on a network-level then.

      If it's a nextgen firewall (That's what the vendors call them, not my term) it will be L7 aware and able to inspect any http traffic going towards the site, So it will depend if cloudflare passes the origin ip in the headers which I think they may do.

    • raindog308raindog308 Moderator

      SysAdmin said: On the application servers in their own respective containers.

      Servers...so are you using MySQL replication to keep each server in sync? Just curious.

      For LET support, please visit the interim support desk.

    • sdglhmsdglhm Member

      raindog308 said: so are you using MySQL replication to keep each server in sync

      I guess it's the way they are doing.

      time wasters please dont comment as we are a serious buyer
      Programmer trying to do Logo Designs

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      It's MariaDB with Galera.

      Thanked by 2sdglhm popu
    • sdglhmsdglhm Member

      SysAdmin said: It's MariaDB with Galera.

      Awesome.

      time wasters please dont comment as we are a serious buyer
      Programmer trying to do Logo Designs

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      @sdglhm said:
      Awesome.

      The people at MariaDB are doing great things, the product is a lot better then MySQL under the stewardship of Oracle.

      Thanked by 1sdglhm
    • tr1ckytr1cky Member

      SysAdmin said: The people at MariaDB are doing great things, the product is a lot better then MySQL under the stewardship of Oracle.

      In terms of performance it's not really better than other master-master replications, but it's definitely the easiest one to configure and has just little flaws.

      tsdns.io - free, redundant, DDoS-protected TSDNS

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      What flaws have you uncovered? I've been using it quite a bit for our internal infrastructure and have found it to be quite stable.

    • tr1ckytr1cky Member

      SysAdmin said: What flaws have you uncovered? I've been using it quite a bit for our internal infrastructure and have found it to be quite stable.

      There's stuff that doesn't work, e.g. delayed insert queries that can be usefull for caching. I had some applications where you had to find a workaround for this stuff.
      I also saw some complex databases lock up from time to time, causing some minutes of downtime.
      For my usage, mariadb-galera isn't worth the slowdowns it causes in the setup I run. On a large xenforo site I run I had a galera-cluster running for some weeks and I noticed that the overall performance was worse.
      For vanilla with only a few to no addons this surely can work very well, but if you're using ~25 addons and run some very db-heavy stuff like a very active shoutbox you will see the performance go downhill.

      tsdns.io - free, redundant, DDoS-protected TSDNS

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      Are you splitting your read / write queries?

    • @SysAdmin said:
      Are you splitting your read / write queries?

      Yup, this is the main issue. Most people tries writing to all galera servers thus it becomes a dead lock

      Thanked by 1vimalware

      Please don't cry.

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      Indeed, most applications don't come out of the box with the ability to specify different read / write DB adapters. Vanilla included.

      I haven't bothered to alter the code to accomplish this task as its not required, the ultimate purpose of the infrastructure in place is to just keep the site online; however if you need that level of performance then splitting of the adapters is absolutely necessary for it to work appropriately.

    • sdglhmsdglhm Member

      SysAdmin said: Are you splitting your read / write queries?

      Indeed !

      time wasters please dont comment as we are a serious buyer
      Programmer trying to do Logo Designs

    • ReetusReetus Member

      @SysAdmin said:
      It runs on a cluster of 3 E3-1240 servers, of which it's load balanced between all three, plus two firewalls in an active / failover configuration.

      Seems overkill.

    • DillybobDillybob Member
      edited July 2015

      This site would run about 20x faster if someone actually spent time optimizing vanilla so it doesn't use 120 requests per fucking refresh. Also, loading JQUERY is pointless as everything this forum software does can be done in plain JS so easily. And what the hell is all this shit?

      Cached or not, it's way too much.

      If the future of the webhosting industry is dictated by a corporate title tag.. we have a HUGE issue. Help make it stop by boycotting WebHostingTalk

    • k0nslk0nsl Member, Member without signature

      The forum is really optimised poorly (to put it mildly):

      Thanked by 1Leechum
    • sdglhmsdglhm Member

      Yes. JS combine may come in handy

      time wasters please dont comment as we are a serious buyer
      Programmer trying to do Logo Designs

    • From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

      Thanked by 1inthecloudblog
    • k0nslk0nsl Member, Member without signature

      And you "whine and bitch" about people wanting a better experience?

      @techhelper1 said:
      From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

      Thanked by 1Leechum
    • @techhelper1 said:
      From what I'm seeing... People whine and bitch about a forum SHOULD function, yet don't do anything about it.

      Well, basically the site is fast itself, it's just it could be so much faster. Especially since this forum is so active, I would imagine it should tickle someone's balls to make it snappier / optimized :). I know It would mine.

      If the future of the webhosting industry is dictated by a corporate title tag.. we have a HUGE issue. Help make it stop by boycotting WebHostingTalk

    • Between the two screenshots all I can see is a lot of jQuery files being loaded. The rest is all CSS and JavaScript for the necessary forum function. Yes it's a lot of files but I'd rather it be organized then all bunched into one file.

    • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
      edited July 2015

      The thing is, what's the difference (in concept) between using a lot of jQuery files and Bootstrap JS files? It's still a lot of files to accomplish the same thing. You'd be surprised at how many bootstrap sites that are not optimized.

    • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
      edited July 2015

      @k0nsl said:
      And you "whine and bitch" about people wanting a better experience?

      By better experience you mean shave off a total of 10-50ms that you won't even notice?

    • k0nslk0nsl Member, Member without signature
      edited July 2015

      I'm sure it would be possible to shave off seconds. This thread takes almost seven seconds to load, cached.

      [EDIT]

      ...and that's with advertisements blocked (on my DNS side) + Ghostry enabled.

      @techhelper1 said:
      By better experience you mean shave off a total of 10-50ms that you won't even notice?

    • techhelper1techhelper1 Member
      edited July 2015

      It takes me about 4.5 seconds cached, although I have Verizon FiOS.

    • edited July 2015

      I have to say it's very snappy browsing for me even though I'm in latam. Good and speedy connections both on mobile and via wired or wifi.
      Wht takes ages and most likely they have more money to spare. Liquidweb connectivity is sheet to latam in my experience.

    • HBAndreiHBAndrei Member, Provider

      Not sure what people are complaining about, it's almost an instant page load for me every time I browse LET, one of the fastest forums I've ever seen.

      Free Uptime Monitoring - minimize your downtime by being the first to know about it.
      Free Blacklist Monitoring - don't let a few bad clients ruin your network.

    • StevieStevie Member

      @SysAdmin
      As others have requested much information can you also list the following:

      • Employees Names
      • Employees Address
      • Employees SSN
      • The ips for the servers
      • The root passwords for the servers
      • CC paypal password

      JUST KIDDING! KNEE SLAP

      It really cool you discuss this information public, granted its not CIA level black op information but atleast your not vultr (IM KIDDING DONT BAN ME VULTR!)

      Signature goes here.

    • SysAdminSysAdmin Administrator

      I'm happy to look at things if they aren't running well, but it's just hard for me to see that given that it loads instantly for me no matter where I try from.

    • jbilohjbiloh Administrator

      Takes about 3 seconds to load this thread for me. Some of that I attribute to my slow wifi at home, though.

      Jon Biloh - ColoCrossing.com
    Sign In or Register to comment.