Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Is having 20 max mySQL connections per user acceptable for a reseller acct??
Is having 20 max mySQL connections per user acceptable for a reseller acct??
| Posted by Silver740, 12-27-2006, 09:14 AM |
| Just wondering because I'm exceeding 20 connections and my host doesn't seem to want to increase that. I've got one site that is running vbulletin and does about 1.5GB of transfer per day w/ approx. 25-35 users on it at any given time.
Just trying to get a feel for what's the industry standard.
|
| Posted by 01globalnet, 12-27-2006, 10:29 AM |
| For many hosts this is a standard limit... you could move your forum to a VPS for greater reliability and flexibility.
|
| Posted by tanfwc, 12-27-2006, 10:47 AM |
| You can create additional user to access the DB and instruct vBulletin to connect either user during connection so you can max up your connection.
You have to check in vBulletin forums and see how this can be done.
|
| Posted by Jedito, 12-27-2006, 11:11 AM |
| Indeed, 20 is a bit low, I think that 50 is the standard
|
| Posted by gate2vn, 12-27-2006, 11:26 AM |
| it depends on your host server, how they sell it... anyway, I doubt you have trouble with that limit, if you have only 25 - 35 users online at the same time
|
| Posted by HostTitan, 12-27-2006, 04:34 PM |
| It depends on what you're paying as well. Mysql can put quite a load on servers, so its a resource that's typically metered tightly. A decent VB forum should be put on a vps or dedicated in the long run, especially if you plan to put some decent mods on it.
|
| Posted by linuxredux, 12-27-2006, 10:31 PM |
| This will depend on the provider and the server in question. Our typical standard is 50 simultaneous connections per users. Servers with greater resource usage will typically be set to 25-35 on our network.
|
| Posted by Webmaster7, 12-28-2006, 08:16 AM |
| I didn't know that you could do that, it's a nice tip, but the restriction of 20 concurrent connections won't apply for all the users of the account, not 20 each?
15 connections from one user plus 6 from another user, won't surpass the limit?
|
| Posted by Swelly, 12-28-2006, 12:58 PM |
| I would agree with this, if you are maxing conlimits on your host try out a VPS.
I think that 20-25 max sql connections is pretty standard unless otherwise stated by the host.
|
| Posted by Website Rob, 12-28-2006, 02:13 PM |
| Twenty connections is a very low and definitely not an Industry Standard. Even a fairly busy site can have a need for higher than that. I have to wonder if you are with a Hoster that offers double-digit GB of Web space and oodles of Data transfer for a few dollars a month?
As a Client, you may find your current Hoster is not offering the features you need. If your site gets even busier -- something we all hope for -- your site Visitors will become frustrated at the continous error msgs. they will receive; due to too many connections.
|
| Posted by linuxredux, 12-28-2006, 02:16 PM |
| This can also easily be adjusted by the site owner by disabling persistent connections in his application.
|
| Posted by Website Rob, 12-28-2006, 02:39 PM |
| Disabling persistent connections does nothing to max. connection limit. Yes, connections will time out faster and that is good but 20 connection max. is still very limiting.
Besides, most (good?) Hosters already have persistent connections disabled at the Server level, so Clients don't have to worry about it either way.
|
| Posted by linuxredux, 12-28-2006, 02:46 PM |
| Here is a good article you may want to read regarding persistent threads: http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events...000000086.html
I disagree that a good host could be defined as one who inherently limits the ability to use persistent connections at the server level. This should be a feature used appropriately by the customer. If the customer finds his applications leaving too many of these threads lingering around, he then can opt to move to regular connections.
The lowest we will go on busy servers is 25-35 (our default is 50). I believe this is more than enough for busy shared hosting environments. Our own internal CRM that manages our entire organizational chart on a standalone server doesn't even come close to the 50 mark. With persistent connections enabled we would see at most 15 sleeping threads.
|
| Posted by Website Rob, 12-28-2006, 03:12 PM |
| A good Host is defined by many things. One of those things is realizing and understanding that the majority of Clients use scripts without any knowledge of programming. Thus, many mistakes and pitfalls caused by bad coding of these scripts can be easily prevented through Server settings while still allowing a script to work as desired.
Those Clients that are coders and do know what they are doing can easily ask/request about particular changes. That is what Support is all about.
Sidenote: just read the article mentioned and found this quite interesting.
"Conclusion: Instead of blindly enabling persistent connections in MySQL you may wish to benchmark your application to see if persistent connections really give you the performance benefit, and if it is large enough to justify for the limitations introduced by them."
The article also mentions that persistent connections are best suited for a slow Server. Nuff said about that.
Last edited by Website Rob; 12-28-2006 at 03:16 PM.
|
| Posted by (Stephen), 12-28-2006, 04:01 PM |
| Rob do you realize that vBulletin can have over 150 users active using less than 20 connections?
|
| Posted by Website Rob, 12-28-2006, 05:04 PM |
| I realize any script can use whatever number of mySQL connections with not all of them being open at the same time. Rather than hijack this thread, a new thread should be started for discussing the pros & cons of persistent connections.
|
| Posted by Brendan Diaz, 12-28-2006, 05:40 PM |
| Rob, I think you are making a good point; however, it is worth pointing out, as you have already mentioned, that a good host can be defined by many things or in many different ways. Various hosting companies target various markets and depending on the level of knowledge/experience the majority of [their] clients have, instilling preventative server settings that can actually prove to be restrictive for particular advanced clients might not truly be the best option (or the sign of a good company) for that given company.
Exactly, it is not uncommon for hosting companies to primarily target coders, developers, or advanced users for these customers they might actually expect to have the feature available. And that is what support is all about they need to be there when clients need them. I think good support (responsive, friendly, knowledgeable), reliability, integrity, and serviceability are some of the true hallmarks of a good host .
With that being said, for your average web hosting company that is *not* targeting advanced users (or rather, a company that is primarily targeting people that are not familiar with coding, etc.), what you have said might be very true. Sometimes it is just difficult to generalize and say that X is a sign of a good company .
Happy holidays everyone!
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
if isset (Views: 763)