#server usage - scale

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

wispy sand
#

hey remix runners! 💨
i have a question relating server usage and scale.

Remix shifts a lot to the server away from the client/browser. Do we know how high traffic platforms with a lot of authenticated users impact the server?

I am curious what would the costs be like.

i guess I was wondering if there are examples like:

  • kcd.com has 1 million visitors / month and is on 30USD/month on fly.io

I tried to get an answer on general channel but maybe here people can still add data and i can find it later on too.

#

server usage - scale

storm vine
#

Making a few connections here to some specific people who have large sites:

@candid mirage do you have any insights to share about the costs of hosting 2M+ views per month on Remix for https://udisc.com/

@sturdy knoll do you have any cost insights you can share about Daffy?

@deft shoal do you have any costs insights you can share about your ~1M page views per month on https://kentcdodds.com

Come check out how Kent C. Dodds can help you level up your career as a software engineer.

deft shoal
#

My costs are around $75/month for 500k visitors a month. Pretty inefficient use of memory on my site and I've scaled it more than I need probably.

sturdy knoll
#

I don’t know how much we paid at Daffy to run the Remix app, but I know we run 8 pods of k8s (I don’t know the size) and we used to run 16, also we over provisioned so we most likely could run less pods

sturdy knoll
urban bolt
sturdy knoll
urban bolt
#

arnt we all hoping the tumultuous traffic we will hit one day so we can bare the load!

#

I'm reffering to the over provisioning here 😆

candid mirage
#

We are currently running 14 instances on fly.io (of 1x shared cpu/512mb RAM) across 7 regions (2 per region).

Our bill was $~500 last month (our highest yet, but only $52.61 of that was instance costs, and $450 of bandwidth (22TB...).

The bandwidth was a bit surprising, and it turns out I had misconfigured the cache-control value for font files (which we recently started self-hosting).

So, aside from that bandwidth mistake, it's quite reasonable. I've only had to scale beyond 14 on a few very large spikes of traffic that were causing some crashes in the servers (due to a now-fixed bug).

deft shoal
#

I think I'd say that in general fly is extremely reasonable for what you get

candid mirage
#

Worth mentioning that our previous implementation (meteor/node) was running on 2CPU/4GB ec2 instances and we needed ~8 or more of them for the same or less traffic. (and had to scale up way more often, plus that was only a single region)

deft shoal
sturdy knoll
#

I think it’s the inverse

deft shoal
#

Oh, great!

sturdy knoll
#

From 2CPU/4GB to 1 shared CPU/512MB

#

Being able to run with a shared CPU and half GB of RAM it’s really nice

candid mirage
#

ya, correct @sturdy knoll - quite a bit less resource usage.