Max Users per Website?? Huh?

[DomainDog]

I noticed this short discussion in the "Pre-Sales" questions area:

http://forums.dathorn.com/showthread.php?p=2123

Personally, I find this pretty confusing. If we are not exceeding our allocated bandwidth, nor have we gone over on storage, why is 80 users accessing html pages at the same time a problem? Or 100? Or 500? Isn't that what a webserver is supposed to do- serve pages?

For a website that has any real success, it seems like that would not be an unusual thing during peak hours, especially if the client advertises, which can result in large numbers of click-throughs and index pages served.

Can someone please clarify?

[Andy]

It also includes System resources as CPU usage. Many users will cause this problem, also some programs/scripts.

[DomainDog]

I can understand this if we are talking about a Forum, which can be resource hogs. But I don't get it if we are talking about serving basic html pages.

Don't most users load a page, then read it? So even if there were 100 users at a site at the same time, it doesn't mean they are all downlaoding pages at the same time.

It would be very helpful to hear from someone at Dathorn about this, because it seems to represent another potential problem similar to the "account suspended" questions we were discussing a while back.

Bottom line- if a client is popular and advertises a site, and gets a couple thousand unique visitors a day, is that account in danger of getting suspended?

[openbox]

FYI, it takes 86,400 page views per day to average 1 per second. Unless your site is getting blasted, I doubt that you'll be having 80+ "simultaneous" views. If you do have that many routine views, you shouldn't be using a shared server with shared resources, IMO.

[DomainDog]

FYI, it takes 86,400 page views per day to average 1 per second. Unless your site is getting blasted, I doubt that you'll be having 80+ "simultaneous" views. If you do have that many routine views, you shouldn't be using a shared server with shared resources, IMO.

This is my point exactly!

In the thread referenced above, it sounds like Andrew is saying that 80+ users on an html site "at the same time" would overload the server or create problems and could end up getting the account suspended!

That seems inconsistant with my limited understanding about web servers, but Andrew is the guru, so that's why I am asking for clarification. I don't want any of my accounts to get suspended for being too successful!

[PubliusTX]

FYI, it takes 86,400 page views per day to average 1 per second. Unless your site is getting blasted, I doubt that you'll be having 80+ "simultaneous" views. If you do have that many routine views, you shouldn't be using a shared server with shared resources, IMO.

Few sites will get 86,400 page views per day (although the Instapundit.com weblog does, and he does it on a shared server with 343 websites according to whois.sc). But what if a site got a link from Instapundit (or Slashdot)? You could hit 80 simultaneous users quickly, although you surely wouldn't AVERAGE it over the course of a day. Still, that would be grounds for suspension according to this thread: http://forums.dathorn.com/showthread...=2161#post2161

I think that's a tougher definition of resource abuse than most people would reasonably expect, so resellers should probably be very clear to their customers about the model at work here.

[KyleC]

we dont know what type of server they are running at the host that Instapundit.com is on. it may be a 23,000$ dual Intel Itanium server. We also dont know what kind of load numbers they are running.

i am sure Instapundit.com's host hostmatters.com would be happy to have your business if you are not happy with dathorns rules.

imagine if there were no rules, imagine if every domain on my server was allowed to push 80hits/second

~300x80=24,000 hits/sec

[reviewum.com]

For fun, let's use some averages and run the numbers:

Lets say each user ON AVERAGE will view 8 pages over 4 mins, that is one page every 30 seconds.

80 "concurrent users" would then give us: 80 users times 120 pages per hour times 24 hours = 230,400 pageviews a day.

If the average static page size = 50Kb (conservative) then 50 * 230,400 = about 11gb (1 gigabyte = 1,048,576 kilobytes) transfer per day or 330 gb per month.

Lets reverse this using the largest package Dathorn provides: 90 GB:

90gb per month = 63,000 pageviews per day (at 50 kb) divided by 120 pageviews per hour = 22 concurrent users.

Without the users involved, a monthly pageviews total on Dathorn with 90 GB and a STATIC page size of:

50 kb is 1,9 million pageviews per month
150 kb is 630,000 pageviews per month

So, if you have a static site that has an average pagesize of 50kb, then your bandwidth won't allow you to go over 22 concurrent users... of course this is based on 24/7 usage, so keep that in mind!

Now, the whole issue of "spikes" in site popularity due to advertising, promotions, or featured articles, etc.... that's a whole 'nother discussion... one that's been had many times under topics of "site suspended".

[AndrewT]

Whether it's average traffic or peak (spiked) traffic doesn't matter. If it's negatively impacting the server's performance and therefore the service provided to every other customer on the server, the problem will be resolved one way or another. We can't possibly be expected to allow something like this to continue.

[reviewum.com]

Yup, I agree... just pointing out that the largest account on Dathorn wouldn't accomodate more than 25 concurrent users 24/7.

[PubliusTX]

we dont know what type of server they are running at the host that Instapundit.com is on. it may be a 23,000$ dual Intel Itanium server. We also dont know what kind of load numbers they are running.

i am sure Instapundit.com's host hostmatters.com would be happy to have your business if you are not happy with dathorns rules.

Well, Kyle, anyone who wants to look up those server specs and load numbers can easily go do so. They're up for anyone to see. It seems odd, though, for a moderator to bring up a competitor by name (note: I did NOT), and it seems even stranger for a moderator to suggest a client move to that competitor!

Did I say I was not happy with Dathorn's rules? NO!

If you think I did, find a quote to prove otherwise. You CAN'T because I DIDN'T.

What I have said is that people using their accounts here for reselling purposes had better be clear in their terms what constitutes abuse of server resources, because many folks would not view a temporary spike of 80 concurrent users of a plain html page as abusive (and if the terms aren't clear, a reseller potentially sets himself up for a Better Business Bureau complaint, which I imagine people would like to avoid). In fact, Kyle, here's YOUR question from an earlier thread when someone is wondering if 80 users is okay:

is it just HTML?

no forums?

Why would you ask that if you weren't thinking something along the same lines -- that a spike of 80 concurrent users on a plain html page did not seem unreasonable on its face?

I guess I could quote that, jump all over you for complaining about Dathorn's rules, and suggest you go to a competitor -- but that would not serve any of the purposes for which this board exists (people helping people, ya know?), nor would it be an accurate reflection of what you actually SAID.

Please, before you jump all over someone, think about what they've actually written. You may actually find it useful. And you may not find it that far removed from what you've written elsewhere. Amazing what we can accomplish here if we try to understand before we fire off a hot response, eh?

For the record, I don't use my account here to sell to clients. I just manage some small personal websites. But for people who are trying to use their accounts here to run a good business, it seems that it might be useful for them to understand the rules on server usage and how best to state those in their terms of service.

Surely you don't disagree with that, do you? And surely it's no reason to suggest I leave Dathorn and go somewhere else?

[AndrewT]

I don't know why this number 80 is being taken as a set example - disregard it. I can't possibly pull a number out and give a yes or no. There are far too many variables at hand here and this has been discussed to death already. If you have any specific questions regarding a specific site then by all means submit a ticket. But this generalization does no one any good.

[DomainDog]

i am sure Instapundit.com's host hostmatters.com would be happy to have your business if you are not happy with dathorns rules.

Kyle, I agree this was not very helpful, and certainly is not your usual helpful, congenial style. You have helped me many times, and I am very grateful.

We are all in this together, and questions and discussions like this are not inappropriate- in fact they should be welcomed, so as to help every Dathorn customer better manage their resources and thereby be more successful.

Shouldn't that be a common goal?

Andrew, since at present we have a "zero tolerance" policy, I think people are just seeking to know where the limits are- so they can be carefully avoided. It's a little scary to think that the first warning we have of passing a limit is the complete meltdown of an account.

[reviewum.com]

This is where it gets tricky. I think it is difficult, if not impossible for Andrew to post limits as there are far too many variables to consider.

I think the only thing we can go by is generalities... like, you may need to move your site if it has a busy forum with consistantly more than 20 concurrent users, is expected to have spikes in traffic that will effect other users, etc. etc. etc.

Too bad Cpanel / WHM doesn't have a cool tool to measure ALL resource uses so we could better quanitfy and narrow down this stuff.

Andrew's job here is to keep business running and to make as many customers as happy as possible.

Keep up the good work Andrew.

[-Oz-]

There are no hard limits and that may be regretable. At the same time I doubt anyone has gotten 80 simultaneous hits at the exact same time (in microseconds). Most likely you will need to go to a dedicated server if this happens consistently.

There really is no point to arguing it unless it actually happens because we have no experience with it.