Tagged: Change SEO plugin
December 31, 2012 at 5:42 am #8583
Oh, I'm glad that somehow I fixed the Jquery problem.
I think I have a Google Webmaster Tools account - I will check tomorow morning. It's past midnight here in New Zealand and the New Year has started. I must go to bed.
The vast majority of my audience is from the US - that's why I have my host there. Could you please let me know your costing and if it suits, I would do what you said and try it out first. My husband is in IT and he knows how to modify the DNS but I have never done it. What kind of traffic a day can your servers cope with? I know a fellow blogger had to move from Bluehost because they couldn't cope with her traffic when it rose.
Off to bed.December 31, 2012 at 6:34 am #8585
You can shrink your jpg filesize, without compromising quality at jpegmini.com
Without an account you can upload 1 jpg at a time. With an account you can create albums.December 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm #8627
Thanks, Leon. I have been doing it in Lightroom and photoshop.January 1, 2013 at 4:23 am #8699
Just try it anyway. You'll see a reduction between 10 and 50% in your case.January 1, 2013 at 9:26 am #8726
@leon - Is there something special that you know about jpegmini.com's compression approach? Photoshop's tools should provide results that are at least as good.
@suzanneper - Cost is $10 or $20/mo, depending on features. In your case, we'll give you 3 mo free as a trial. Just email sales at wpperform.com and we can explain more. On traffic, it's a good question, but you first have to understand the difference in approaches.
At BH, you are on a shared server running Apache, which starts off with a pool of resources. You are 1 of many on that server. The traffic that you can reasonably serve is a function of several things: the starting pool of resources (the BH features) and the loads placed by others on that server (over which you have no knowledge/control unless you do some digging). In your or your friend's case, you could have traffic that is too big for the starting resource or someone else on the server is consuming too many resources and BH isn't paying attention or doesn't care. (I had a case where a client had little traffic but the server was often reporting high loads, and BH refused to move them to another server.) At BH, your shared server connects to a database server, which I think is a single server (ie, if it's down, your WP site is down).
Our approach is an entirely different model. First, we are running a different server OS, Nginx, that is much faster than Apache. Second, our web and database servers are redundant, so a failure by any 1 is not fatal; our DB servers are set up to use a different DB class to take full advantage of the redundancy. Third, our web servers are behind a load balancer that directs traffic to the least used web server. In effect, a site exists on multiple web servers and is served by the 1 with the least traffic. Lastly, the # of web servers can go up and down easily (within a few minutes) as traffic changes, which we monitor constantly. If traffic spikes for 1 day, we can bring additional servers online for just that day, at very low cost. We use aggressive caching that converts pages to static HTML, so frequently accessed pages can be served up in about 1/2 second (500 ms), which reduces the processing that the web servers need to do (no need to run PHP or get info from the DB server to figure out how to produce a page). This model serves the smallest and biggest sites equally well. It is very similar to the approach that WP.com uses to run 50 million + sites. And btw, hats off to the WP.com folks, because they often document technologies they adopt, so everyone in the WP world benefits. So the answer to your question about how much traffic is supportable is not as much a technical one as it is compared to BH, just a financial one in terms of how much traffic you want to pay to support. The $10/mo plan is probably good for about 5k/mo visitors; the $20/mo plan, about 15k. We don't turn off the spigot if you go above a visitor or pageview count on a consistent basis. We just kindly encourage you to give us more $
Hope that helps.
January 2, 2013 at 12:26 am #8900
Thanks, Bill, for your detailed explanation - it was very enlightening. Last month I had almost 50,000 views. What would the cost be for that traffic?January 2, 2013 at 9:35 am #8943
A few words to clarify: my original metrics were in terms of total visitors (but not unique visitors!); yours was in terms of pageviews. Those are 2 different things. As a good rule of thumb, you can at least divide your pageviews by 2 to get an approximation of human visitors, but there are a lot of exceptions. If you use a service like Google Analytics, your pageview count does not include bots, and depending on your site characteristics, bots can be a small or huge share of visitors. You would need to look at your server to get total pageviews from humans and bots. For example, with IDX tools for real estate agents able to create and update automatically thousands of posts that spiders love to crawl, a RE agent site might have 10k monthly human visitors but 50k monthly visitors from bots. Bing is an exceptionally aggressive crawler, and new global crawlers crop up all the time. Unless you look at your server access logs, you are unaware of the visits from bots & content scrapers that are visiting your site, including scrapers that are stealing your content. Those bad visitors are hurting you 2 ways: stealing your content and taking your server resources. For us, these bad visitors have ranged between 10-20% of traffic and are right now running at about 13%. We use tools to block that bad traffic which you in all likelihood aren't blocking now, so all other things being equal, your site on BH has more load with fewer resources than the same site on our network.
As a guide to understanding how traffic impacts a server, no metric (visitors or pageviews or something else) is perfect, because what really matters is whether that traffic is getting a cached page (since serving a cached page takes very little resources), and those metrics don't measure that.
January 2, 2013 at 9:47 am #8944
There's a ton of great info in this thread and I confess I didn't read it all. But I wanted to chime in and share some additional resources that can help.
Here is an excellent tool for minimizing the size of theme element png images: http://tinypng.org/
If you don't want to worry about resizing the original images for posts, here is a plugin that can automate that process for you: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/imsanity/ Just adjust the settings to match your theme.
When I need to have a big background image I'll us a jpg image because I can save it in Photoshop with a very low image quality. I basically use trial and error reducing the quality setting as much as I can so it still doesn't look bad to the eye. Since theme background images are usually patterns you can usually get away with a much lower image quality so you can have a much smaller file size to help your site load faster.
January 2, 2013 at 12:17 pm #8979
Good points, Chris.
There's another plugin that's worth mentioning: WP Smush.It. Unfortunately, Smush.it depends on a Yahoo service that sometimes isn't available, but when it works it's another way to reduce image sizes for images in your WP media library.
For your comment on background images, try using CSS repeat functionality to create a small portion of your background and repeat it. It can make a big difference in image size. And if you really want to minimize HTTP requests, put your CSS images in a sprite.
January 12, 2013 at 1:15 pm #11483
Bill, sorry it has taken this long to get back to you. I returned to work after a nice two-week break when I concentrated on my blog and time is short again. Just to clarify, the almost 50,000 views were the stats from WordPress Jetpack and they were actual visits not page views. I have since checked Google Anatytics and the visits are 41,000+ with the unique visitors at 39,000+ and 49,000+ page views for December.
I have had a look at my bill from Bluehost and they charge $5.95/month and I guess you get what you pay for. I will stick with them for the moment but as soon as the traffic gets too high for them, I will get back to you. I have bookmarked this thread.
Thanks you so much for all your help. It has been much appreciated.January 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm #11506
Glad to hear all is well. Your ratio of page views to visitors is probably what is saving you. I would have expected your page views to be higher. You can use that as a signal that you need to find better ways to get visitors to stay and look around once they visit.
You may be lucky in that you are on a less busy server. In my experience, BH bogs down at a much lower traffic level. If you monitor your page load times and see them deteriorate, especially if they get above 2 seconds, you can look around for alternatives.
January 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm #14830
Bill, I am ready to move. I am so over the slow speed and the down times. It is driving me crazy. Recently I got an email from Brian Gardner at Studiopress with a hosting deal. Is this the same service that have spoken about above?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.