What type of hosting would be suitable for the following project requirements:



1) Handling 100,000 simultaneous users.
2) Utilizing PHP and MySQL.
3) Processing 10,000 requests per second with an average duration of 0.1 seconds each.
4) Storing 5-10 MB of product content on the average page, with subsequent browser caching.

Considering the server options:

Option 1:
- Linux CentOS, 64-bit
- Intel® Core™ i5, quad-core
- 32 GB of RAM
- 2 TB in total hard drive capacity
- 15 TB monthly traffic

Option 2:
- Linux CentOS, 64-bit
- Intel® Core™ i7, quad-core
- 8 GB of RAM
- 2 TB in total hard drive capacity
- 15 TB monthly traffic

Option 3:
- Processor: 4x2.5 GHz Quad-Core E5-4603 Sandy Bridge Xeon
- Memory: 128 GB DDR3
- Primary Hard Drive: 500 GB / SATA III
- 10,000 GB Bandwidth / 1 Gbps port
- 3 IP Addresses
- Operating System: CentOS 6.x / Linux/Other, 64 Bit

Will these options suffice? Should dynamic and static content be hosted on separate servers? Are there any more cost-effective alternatives that should be considered?

In order to handle 100,000 simultaneous users and process 10,000 requests per second with an average duration of 0.1 seconds each, you will need a robust hosting solution with significant processing power and memory capacity.

Considering the options provided:

Option 1: The Intel Core i5 quad-core processor and 32 GB of RAM in this setup suggest a decent level of processing power and memory capacity. However, it's important to consider that handling 100,000 simultaneous users and processing 10,000 requests per second with an average duration of 0.1 seconds each can be quite demanding. While this option may handle moderate traffic and requests, it may not be optimal for the level of activity you anticipate.

Option 2: The inclusion of an Intel Core i7 quad-core processor is an improvement in terms of processing power. However, the 8 GB of RAM may become a bottleneck when dealing with the high volume of simultaneous users and requests you specified. This setup may struggle to efficiently handle the load without sufficient memory capacity.

Option 3: This option features a 4x2.5 GHz Quad-Core E5-4603 processor, 128 GB of DDR3 memory, and 10,000 GB of bandwidth with a 1 Gbps port, addressing the need for high processing power and memory capacity. With a substantial amount of memory and processing cores, this server setup is better equipped to handle the large number of simultaneous users and high request rates outlined in your requirements.

Regarding the separation of dynamic and static content, it can indeed be beneficial to host them on separate servers. By doing so, you can optimize the server resources for each type of content, implement different caching mechanisms, and enhance security by isolating dynamic content processing from static content delivery.

While Option 3 seems to align well with your project requirements, it's important to consider cost-effectiveness. Exploring cloud hosting solutions could be beneficial, as they offer scalability and flexibility, allowing you to adjust resources based on demand, potentially leading to cost savings.

While Option 3 appears to be the most suitable in terms of server specifications, it's essential to evaluate the overall cost-effectiveness and consider alternative hosting solutions, such as cloud hosting, to ensure that the chosen option meets your requirements while offering scalability and efficiency.

The outcome of the computation is accurate, but the circumstances of the issue are inaccurate. To begin with, one must disregard the idea of hosting with fixed data traffic. Secondly, such limitations generally do not arise from monthly data usage, but rather from instantaneous demand. In addition, we are dealing with 5 MB/sec, which is inadequate for the project (100k online during peak hours)!

Everything hinges on the nature of the project and its technical requirements. I am not aware of the average speed. In this case, I measured the most heavily trafficked page of the website (admin panel with accounting), with all requests. PHP is able to generate a page in 0.0027 seconds. There are approximately 25 requests and a number of cycles. The simplest (individual product output pages) takes 0.0001 seconds. Once again, it covers everything.

This is regardless of the fact that I have never considered the speed of operation. The average daily traffic for the site is 100-150 people. I cannot even fathom how it is possible to achieve an average query time of 0.1 seconds. It should be at least 100 times faster.

The website's performance depends on three key factors:
1. choosing the right hardware;
2. configuring the server optimally for the script;
3. the quality of the script itself and its settings.

For instance, if 32 GB of RAM and an E3-1230v3 processor are sufficient, and there are no delays or queues, then increasing the RAM to 128 GB or adding additional processors, such as two E3-1230v3, will have no impact.
However, if the X3440 processor is being used and there are no queues, but the php processes consume not just a few percent but 50-90% of the CPU, then it would be reasonable to switch to the E3-1230, for example. Otherwise, the difference would be minimal.