Providing results for cs-cart customers when using dedicated servers with 64GB memory configurations is in fact unrealistic. Pay $400 for software and spend $500+/month for a server to run it?
I have clients that run 225K products in V3.0.4 cs-cart with 12GB memory and a few cpu's. So 100K products isn't really a big deal
Anything will run fast if you cache it all in memory (like the old SHM caching method used in V3) and then have the DB cached in memory as well. That's not rocket science and says nothing about the software itself but rather what you can spend to host it.
Now you're getting silly in your response. Find me a host that runs atom processors on a server. We all know that different cpus have different core counts and different clock speeds and different internal caches (all of which make a huge difference). My point was to show performance across a scaling of HW configurations as well as product/site configs.
And don't forget the software variants that impact performance as well. Things like number of cart promotions, product features, product comparisons, etc.
My point is that your configuration and results is not relevant to 99.9% of your customers. Great news for you internally as it relates to Merchium but not relevant at all to your bread and butter customers. You know, they guys who pay your bills/salaries.
You've effectively shown one data point that is irrelevant to the vast majority of your customers. My request was simply to provide performance/configuration info that might help 99% of your customers versus 0.01%.
Why you are so sure? I wouldn't be. The Atom cores are offered in USA. Yes it is tricky business but USA is USA. In contrast, the mentioned server in Nuremberg, Germany is 44USD for 64GB RAM, 2 SSD's, very last i7 CPU.
If you pay $$$ for similar spec in USA, it is not only others problem. You need be more critical about your own numbers like 99.9% or 500+/month.
If you try then you may see same thing differently. Thus the demo cart is installed on $44 server (+VAT). :)
But yes, i do support the idea to provide the tests with Varnish on newer engines like nginx, percona,..
Nginx would make more difference than extra cores and Gigs of RAM when used with FPC'd (static) content.
The main goal of the highload demo is to demonstrate that if you wanna go fast and high-available with CS-Cart and huge product count under a high load - you can do it.
$400 for software and spend $500+/month for a server to run it?
As mentioned above, it's only $44.
Nginx would make more difference than extra cores and Gigs of RAM when used with FPC'd (static) content
The main goal of the highload demo is to demonstrate that if you wanna go fast and high-available with CS-Cart and huge product count under a high load - you can do it.
As mentioned above, it's only $44.
We used Nginx as a server behind Varnish.
Write please Nginx configuration, Varnish, Redis, MySQL for your demo site.
For new installations and testing i would advise to try the cheapest and fastest clouds (in Americas) https://www.vultr.com/pricing/
Takes no time to start with uploading your project. I compared performance to 3 other popular providers, this one is way faster. Especially good feature is that for $5 (first month free) you get on SSD and choose out of 14 locations. I clicked on Dallas and got ping time of 14ms from my home in Austin.
Why you are so sure? I wouldn't be. The Atom cores are offered in USA. Yes it is tricky business but USA is USA. In contrast, the mentioned server in Nuremberg, Germany is 44USD for 64GB RAM, 2 SSD's, very last i7 CPU.
If you pay $$$ for similar spec in USA, it is not only others problem. You need be more critical about your own numbers like 99.9% or 500+/month.
If you try then you may see same thing differently. Thus the demo cart is installed on $44 server (+VAT). :)
But yes, i do support the idea to provide the tests with Varnish on newer engines like nginx, percona,..
Nginx would make more difference than extra cores and Gigs of RAM when used with FPC'd (static) content.
Unfortunately I think you're mixing apples/oranges. They specified a dedicated server with 64GB of ram. Not a cloud partition that will page in memory up to 64GB. The goal of this test was (I think) to show performance under a sustained load, not bursts. Yes, the $500 figure came out of the air in that what I see offered in the US for VPS (non-cloud) installations is about $85/month for 6GB so I just extrapolated since I don't have any customers who require dedicated servers with 64MB. As I said, under V3 and SHM, it was not difficult to have a site running 225K products in a commercial environment. But I have not asked for a quote on a 64GB dedicated server anywhere. But, $500 might be too low a number too.
If you have a dedicated server (not cloud) you want to give me with 64GB of memory for $44/month, I'm all ears.
Note that demo.cs-cart.com has very few products and the whole data set is pretty useless for establishing any kind of load test.
Note that demo.cs-cart.com has very few products and the whole data set is pretty useless for establishing any kind of load test.
Cannot argue on this. It is real trap for those who starts with the hope on bаrе Fortune.
Regarding to cloud vs dedicated server, i see what is your point about devoted RAM but then if we worry about sustained load not bursts, it is just empirical evaluation not what this demo is all about.
I need to see the improvement from cs-cart to the updated cs-cart, well, loaded with same 'pretty useless' data load. If this improvement is essential then you have more space to manage sustained load too.
Again, sustained load may be handled more effectively with Nginx and nightworming FPC than with pricey hardware.
If you have a dedicated server (not cloud) you want to give me with 64GB of memory for $44/month, I'm all ears.
Will the automatic server configuration work on hetzner also? The last was prepared for digital ocean. How about rewriting the the article on the blog for php7?
Will the automatic server configuration work on hetzner also? The last was prepared for digital ocean. How about rewriting the the article on the blog for php7?
I mean the article with complete ubuntu configuration which was published for 4.3.1 i belive and the twaek article can be also republished on the blog.
Please support LiteSpeed. LiteSpeed is much easier to manage for non-technical webmasters. NGINX is quite complex. We use LiteSpeed on all our servers and it saves us a lot of money on hosting costs. We really need LiteSpeed support.
I too request Litespeed support. Its an affordable webserver that outperforms Apache hands down. We've been running CS Cart 4.x under Litespeed for around two years now.
I would also like to request LiteSpeed support since my host has changed to LiteSpeed in June 2014, here is what they had to say:
The implementation of LiteSpeed on Business and WHM Multi Reseller services to date has helped us to improve our product delivery to ensure we meet the demands of our clients in a world where website performance is paramount. The implementation of the LiteSpeed Web Server product has delivered measurable performance improvements across our fleet when compared to the traditional Apache backend, representing greater than 50% increases in performance. In a nutshell this means that we can deliver your webpages to more of your clients and with greater speed, than a traditional Apache web host can. For you this means that our servers can facilitate a greater number of concurrent visitors to your website, which in turn translates to greater profit potential for your business.