Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Industry Announcements > Web Hosting Main Forums > Providers and Network Outages and Updates > Need advice - dedicated server for a video app
Need advice - dedicated server for a video app
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 02:02 PM |
|
Hi all!
First post here on WHT - looking to improve my knowledge about web servers and make the right decisions for my business with the wealth of knowledge available here.
We are currently in the process of building a web and mobile application that allows users to upload and watch videos like YouTube - considering that, I realise performance and storage is more important for me than it would be for a basic website to be hosted.
I am currently on a bootstrapped budget so trying to get as much as I can out of what I have - here's what I plan to start with (of course I'd be open to upgrading once we scale):
Dedibox from Online.net with these specs:
Memory: 16GB DDR3Storage (SATA2): 1TB SATA or 250GB SSD (what do I choose here??)Bandwidth: Basic, Unmetered, 1Gbit 2500 BaseX Interface
Need your advice if this is a good choice
And for the OS, I don't want to buy cPanel right now, so I am confused between Sentora, VestaCP and Virtualmin - which one's the best for my requirements?
I would really appreciate any advice on this as I'm still new to this!
^uv
|
| Posted by TMS - JoseQ, 11-08-2016, 02:03 PM |
|
What is the CPU? It will play a big part if you will be encoding videos once they are uploaded.
|
| Posted by TMS - JoseQ, 11-08-2016, 02:04 PM |
|
You will also need a lot of storage since videos take a lot of space. 250GBs will give you >maybe< 250 hours worth of video if they're encoded in very low quality (also means you're quickly discarding the uploads). Storage is cheap. Try getting as much as possible.
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 02:17 PM |
|
Intel C2750 2.40GHz
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 02:17 PM |
|
what do you think of 1TB SATA? I hear SSD is better than SATA in terms of performance tho
|
| Posted by TMS - JoseQ, 11-08-2016, 02:27 PM |
|
No, very wrong CPU there. That's an Atom. It will take days to encode any video (exaggerating but still).
SSDs are SATA as well. The difference is the 1TB is a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) vs Solid State Drive (SSD). SSD is way faster, but it will make little to no difference in an encoding / file serving environment such as the one you're describing.
Here is where you should base your priorities:
1. CPU Performance
2. Amount/Speed of RAM
3. Amount of Storage
4. Speed of Storage
SSD vs HDD is unimportant in this scenario. If you're going to encode videos, you need a Xeon or preferably an i7. An Atom is meant for netbooks and low power devices. They're designed to save battery life, not to perform.
|
| Posted by JSCL, 11-08-2016, 02:28 PM |
|
SATA has a use, for sure. But the quality of these drives will vary from provider to provider too. Some will use low quality low RPM drives, some won't. Honestly, SSD is becoming a new standard in drive choice now and they aren't as expensive to come by as they used to be. But in this environment, I wouldn't worry too much. Just don't get lumbered with low quality desktop drives.
With processing videos, you want to give your users the best possible upload speeds too. Where are your users primarily based? One country, one city, one continent? Location will be a big factor in choosing the right server for you too.
CPU will be something to look at as @TMS - JoseQ will certainly tell you too. You're not just looking for a standard E3 here, for example. The newer i7 processors are really the awesome choice for this kind of job.
|
| Posted by SenseiSteve, 11-08-2016, 02:36 PM |
|
Just wanted to reinforce what JSCL said about low quality low RPM desktop drives - ask potential providers these questions.
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 09:34 PM |
|
Thanks again for your comprehensive response JoseQ! What's your opinion on a config like this:
1) Processor: Intel® Xeon® D-1531 - 6C / 12T @2.2 Ghz
2) Memory: 32 GB DDR4
3) Storage: 2 × 250 GB SSD
4) Bandwidth: 300Mbit/s bandwidth
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 09:37 PM |
|
Yes, I am starting to lean more towards SSD as well just for the sake of better performance. My users would be primarily based in the US and part of it from the UK (for now at least). Do you think a server in Amsterdam or Paris would be okay for a userbase that's largely in the US? Because the American alternatives I looked at are a bit steep for the config I would require.
^uv
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 09:38 PM |
|
What according to you should I benchmark against in this case?
|
| Posted by JSCL, 11-08-2016, 09:44 PM |
|
For a situation like this where you have a US and UK audience, I'd be seriously recommending anyone to look at New York / New Jersey as an option. You have a good connection within the US and it's also where transit from the UK lands in to the US too.
I wouldn't bother looking at other European locations. As above, New York and New Jersey should be your one-location shout. Even better than that, why not get two smaller servers? One in the US and one in the UK? This would be a more ideal scenario. In which case, I'd be recommending you to look at Dallas or Chicago for the US and then a server in the UK.
Lots to think about, but it will ultimately be driven by your budget limitations. If this is a new thing and you're trying to drive strong growth in your userbase, you need to make the right call here.
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 09:52 PM |
|
Interesting - I had not given a lot of thought to the location before this, might have to rethink and see what other options are available too. I was pretty keen on some offerings by Dedispec but I just can't get myself to go for a company that has their only phone line disconnected and don't respond to a sales lead from me lol
|
| Posted by JSCL, 11-08-2016, 09:55 PM |
|
That doesn't sound too good! They should be doing everything they can to open up to your business.
Do some shopping around, communicate your needs with providers you find, just don't be sold in to a solution that isn't right for you. It'll damage your new product and user experience.
|
| Posted by gekko1609, 11-08-2016, 09:58 PM |
|
Yep - do you have any suggestions? My budget isn't too high considering I want to start off small and I don't mind upgrading later.
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
Shared Hosting
Shared Hosting
