konrados
By:
konrados

One million users daily, each one downloading 0.5GB daily

November 12, 2014 3.8k views

Is this even possible with digital ocean? If so, will it work with one load balancing server (I'm after reading this: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-haproxy-to-set-up-http-load-balancing-on-an-ubuntu-vps )?

I have no experience with clouds. I'm not even sure how to calculate my needs.

11 comments
  • What kind of site are you running?

  • Hi,
    It's for a client of a company I work for. It's about installing games and updates to these games.

    p.s. should I click "answer question" or "write a comment" when I only want to continue discussion....?

  • You could put a bunch of Droplets in a round robin but DO isn't really suited for this, You should use a dedicated service like S3 or OpenStack's Swift. Rates at various providers differ but you should be able to push 1GB for ¢1 and probably much less since you can negotiate bulk rates.

  • It's certainly possible on DigitalOcean, but the best way to go about it depends on a lot of factors. Depending on the kind of content that is being hosted, it's possible that you'll want to do something like hosting the actual assets in an S3 bucket on Amazon. Unless this is streaming content, you'll also probably want to put something like CloudFlare in front of it. That would significantly reduce bandwidth usage.

  • @bofh @asb

    This will be simple static files.

    Btw., if Amazon S3 is so great, then what are the benefits of using DigitalOcean over Amazon S3?

  • S3 and Digital Ocean are completely different services. They're not really comparable. DO is more like EC2, though even then not very much alike.

    And I'm not sure CloudFlare will cache half a gig files.

  • OK, I get it.

    But there is one thing I don't understand. When I calculate the price on DigitalOcean it looks like it's about 8000$ for 500TB, while on Amazon S3 ( http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ ) it's 13 750$ ( Standard Storage), then why you say Amazon S3 is better for my purpose?

  • I don't think you're counting right. You're going to be pushing the same update to very many people, right? Then your major cost is transfer out to the Internet, everything else will be pennies.

  • You're right:) I looked at data storage prices.

    But it's even worse, at Amazon S3 it's about 0.05$ per 1GB, while at DigitalOcean it's only 0.02$, so still, Amazon S3 is more expensive. So why Amazon S3 is supposed to be better for my purpose?

  • I don't want to advertise other services on Digital Ocean own website but you can find dumb ("object") storage cheaper than that.

  • I think your right but is possible for Performance Data Resources

2 Answers

Konrados, maybe if you can tell us a bit more about the content, ie: are they delivering updates for their games? you want to support only such updates on DO or also their website? if so what kind of use the website has?

As recommended by others, if you are hosting big update files is better to use something like Amazon S3, if the website is expected to have high traffic most of the time, set a Nginx and varnish and add Cloudflare to the mix and you can easily handle thousands of visitors, but for big file transfers try S3.

Also I'm not sure why you want to use a LB, if it is for the website a couple of $5 droplets with Varnish4 can handle it, just set Cloudflare (or your DNS) to point @ record to both varnish servers.

  • Hi, thanks for the answer.

    Somebody recommended me DigitalOcean, that's why I'm interested in it. You (and the others) suggest Amazon S3 - just out of curiosity - if it's so cool, then what are the benefits of using DigitalOcean over Amazon S3?

  • S3 is pure storage at cheap price, DO is not comparable at all, a better comparation will be DO and Amazon EC2, where DO is faster to deploy and cheaper for small-mid servers.

    S3 is a cloud storage service, you can actually run anything on it, just store files for easy distribution.

Have another answer? Share your knowledge.