I'm new to server architecture and have been reading around a lot but have not yet had a solid opinion on if the setup below is good practice or not and was hoping someone with more experienced can give me confirmation if I'm setting up my architecture correctly:
Use Angular Universal to Pre render html to CDN (e.g. Cloudflare)
Cloudinary for Image assets
One/Few strong machines with ngix handling bus load and sending off to other servers listed below (all hosted in digital ocean):
Rest API (Express Server)
Database MongoDB
I'm really concerned about the speed of my rest api as the regions offered in digital ocean seem significantly smaller in contrast to a cdn like cloudflare. How much does this matter when affecting my speed and is a service?
I know this might sound ridiculous but the region issue makes me wonder if hosting a rest api express server on a cdn would be better than a place like digital ocean. (my instincts tell me I should't do this on a cdn but am at a loss for reasons and hope someone can provide clear reasons why I can or shouldn't host an express rest api server there.)
From my knowledge I would do this a little differently.
A CDN is used to serve content hence the name CDN (Content Delivery Network). The CDN its self doesn't serve the content but it routes the user to a server which serves it. For example if you have a server in the US, France and Asia and you where from the UK and requested the website with images hosted on these servers. The CDN would direct you the the closest/best server for you. In this case that would be the server in France.
So to answer your question it isn't a bad idea to host the RESTful API on the CDN but you would need multiple servers around the world (if you are going for worldwide) and use Cloudflare CDN to direct your traffic.
This is what I would do:
If your not expecting loads of traffic (like millions) just have 1-2 servers in each location so 1-2 in North America, South America, France (EU), Asia and maybe Australia. This will give you decent coverage. Then when you setup your CDN that should handle who goes where. Using node and nginx will help you a lot this will allow you to get cheaper not as powerful servers because they are pretty light weight.
Now for your databases you can do one of two things have one dedicated solution somewhere which will be as little latency for all regions somewhere like France (EU) so its more central or you can have multiple and have them sync. Having multiple databases which sync will be more work and will require quite a bit of research. Having the one server is a lot easier to manage.
The database will be your biggest problem deciding whether to do with one and deal with latency or multiple and have to manage them and keep them in sync. Keep in mind you could go with a cloud hosting platform to host your database this would help you with the issue because a lot of platforms will offer worldwide coverage as well as providing synchronised databases. You will however run into the cost issue when using cloud platforms.
Hope this answers your questions and provides you with the knowledge you need!
Related
I Would like to know if someone have any idea to Create my own Cloud, soon I'll buy a professional server and I Would like to create my own cloud. I also want to be able to host web sites and data . Thank you for your help
Response to your comment. This is possible. I would look into to the open source hyper-visor framework called Xen. The reason is every cloud provider hosts their own hardware. They mostly also use some virtualization technology. For a "lower" startup cost, look into Xen as it is open source and used by many cloud providers in the business today (AWS, Digital Ocean, Rackspace, Verizon) Understand that this is a huge undertaking and requires a lot of capital, but hopefully this will point you in the right direction.
http://www.xenproject.org/
We're launching an iPhone app soon, and if everything goes well, we might reach up to tens of millions of user each day.
What server solution would you use for this? I guess a small VPS isn't enough. Is dedicated server a better choice? Is there any good hosting provider that can provide such servers?
I'm a newbie when It comes to servers, and would like some basic info about how to handle this.
Thanks in advance
Unfortunately, you are not really going to know the apps requirements until the app is launched. It all depends on how much the app needs to communicate with the server, and how often users are using the app. Depending on those variables and even more, a VPS might be enough, or you may need a dedicated box, or several. It also depends a lot on the performance of the VPS and dedicated boxes, furthermore it depends on how much access to the system you need.
Ultimately, it seems you may not even know how well the app is going to do, so I suggest you take the cheap/efficient route of using cloud computing. That way you will limit your expenses initially when you app has a small user base. Then your performance can amp up as quickly as your app requires (of course so will the price). That is the benefit of cloud computing, you will not be losing money in the beginning until you have the user base to use your server to its limit. Furthermore, you do not have downtime, etc when/if your server is no longer enough.
Check out Google's Cloud Computing to get a hint of what is possible. I personally like Google's cloud experience, but you have many more options with varying degrees of freedom that you will have to check out. Amazon of course is another possibility.
What is the purpose of CDN service providers?
My guess is that large scale sites like facebook,wikipedia,youtube etc use CDN service providers for some kind of outsourcing.
My understanding:
youtube keeps its content in these
CDNs and the site actually focus on
algorithms such as searching of
videos,suggesting related videos,
keeping subscriber list/playlist of
users etc.
The youtube site only keeps
meta-data,indexes?. or may be it also
contains one copy of its entire
content?. The user connects to
youtube site, searches for a video.
The site finds out the file name and
sends it to the CDN hub along with IP
address of the user.
The CDN hub than perhaps locates the
CDN node closest to the user and
serves the content to the user.
What is the advantage of this approach?
One most important I can see is that esp for videos, it is perhaps remarkably much more faster if you are streaming video from the same country than from across the globe.
but does distance really matter that much? Any concrete numbers to get a sense of increase in speed between getting videos from across the globe than from same country?
and Google doesn't want to install its storage nodes all over the world. It would rather outsource this to CDN service providers which have already spread their nodes all over the world. and Google only focuses on algorithms part (which it mostly keeps secret)
Is my understanding of the picture correct? Any input/pointers would be highly useful.
Thanks,
I learned about the importance of CDNs in terms of website performance a couple of years back thanks to Yahoo's "Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site"
This is oft-referenced in ySlow, and Yahoo estimated a 20% speed increase.
Another "benefit" is parallel downloading, which is discussed at length by one of the above authors in this blog post.
These are some resources that I ran into when looking into site optimization so I just thought I'd share. Besides that, you seem to have a good grasp on the concept.
It seems that SaaS and Cloud computing are old concepts with new names, and I am curious if I am wrong.
For cloud computing you can look at: Difference between cloud computing and distributed computing?
Basically, it seems that when we have been hosting that that is cloud computing, it is just that now some companies have put in much great resources to ensure better uptime than my local ISP. But, it seems that there is nothing really new here.
For REST, it seems that it is what we have been doing with cgis for 15 years.
Here is a question on REST: What am I not understanding about REST?
It appears that REST is an old concept, and I am curious how it is different than has been done since the early days of the web, and, to a large extent, the early days of using telnet (which http is on top of).
Am I mistaken in my simplification of these? I try to see how what is new is like what I know so I can see what more has to be learned in that topic, but for cloud computing and REST it seems that very little needs to be learned.
You are both right and wrong. You are right in the sense that new ideas are normally similar to old ideas, and indeed cloud computing is based significantly on distributed computing.
What is new in cloud computing is
virtualization
self-service
With virtualization, you can run multiple operating systems on a single hardware. While that, in itself, isn't new, either, it was never considered in distributed systems as a relevant piece of the architecture. Using virtualization allows self-service: users can create their own clusters of nodes without the administrator of the hardware taking any action. This allows a significant acceleration of deployment, and a significant reduction of cost.
For ReST, what you are missing is the client API. It is true that on the server side, a ReST service can be implemented with CGI. What is new here is that it is not an end user which retrieves the URL, but a program.
Saying that HTTP is on top of telnet ignores realities; this is like saying that we made no progress since the introduction of copper wires for communication. Strictly speaking, HTTP is not in top of telnet, but on top of TCP (which telnet is also on top of, these days).
Considering Roy's dissertation coined the term REST back in 2000, you can definitely argue that there is nothing new about REST. Additionally, the REST architectural style was synthesized from successful existing practices, so REST implementations pre-date the definition. Having said that, there is nothing simple about designing REST interfaces. Ever since Netscape first abused cookies to allow servers to maintain session state people have been swimming upstream against the web.
REST's recent resurrection has come mainly from people becoming disillusioned with SOAP based Web Services. SOAP tried to hide HTTP instead of embracing it and I think people are starting to realize how effective HTTP can be as an distributed application protocol that can do more than just deliver HTML to web browsers.
RESTful web applications don't use session state, so one could argue that by that virtue alone it is different than most web applications in existence at the moment.
As for Cloud Computing, I find myself agreeing with Larry Ellison for once in my life.
I'm in agreement on what you've posted. You might consider making this community wiki since it's likely to garner many answers based on opinion. Cloud computing seems to have taken off as a buzzword, and this is largely due to a decrease in cost for mass quantities of hardware. And then there is REST which is really just a formal name and definition for something that has been in place for a long time. Some people like to encapsulate ideas with buzzwords and acronyms. Sometimes it's useful to put a name to an idea though.
Not only this, the concept of things being old concepts with new names is old. It's hard to be original these days :P
You are right about REST -- its mostly old concepts with a lot of added pedantry and not much added substance.
Cloud computing has a small but fundamental difference from distributed computing. In distributed computing you had servers dedicated to particular functions, and usually some sort of directory service to locate the correct server. In cloud computing any server is capable of any task and usually the servers queue up for work which is distributed from a central point.
I was involved in couple of cloud computing platform recently.
First of all please note that I am not trying to criticize any platform.
Cloud computing is large area but to make my point simple and understandable. Let me come up with very simple scenario and that is data storage services hosted on the cloud.
If you take any storage service like Amazon EC2, SQL Data Service(SDS), Salesforce.com services.
If you want to consume any of such data storage service platform goal of all such service are same and that is to serve requested data on demand. Without warring about how it store and where it stored and who is maintaining it etc... (all cloud goodies)
Now my area of concern is the way ANSI-SQL regulated platform venders to make sure they follow similar language across all the product can’t they regulate similar concept across
service providers?
Why no such initiatives??
Any thoughts appreciated
It seems to me like you're worried about vendor lock-in with cloud computing. I may be naive but I would normally choose technologies and then go look for cloud vendors that'd be able to deliver these technologies. And if I was aiming for a "write once run anywhere approach" I'd have to select technology that'd make this as realistic as possible.
With the fairly rapid speed of development I really think standardization committees would struggle to keep up. ANSI-SQL has had 20 + years of history. It seems to me like you're requesting for standardization long before we even know what the cloud is up to....
I think that this emerging cloud computing initiative is just too young in order to have standards.
Service providers right now just worry about rushing into the market, rather than interoperability and standards.
Later on, when the situation is more established, some common guidelines may emerge. But there is still a long way to go.
You seem to be asking specifically about cloud storage services, rather than cloud computing in general. So your Amazon example would be S3, not EC2.
I think the field is a little young to be standardising on an API just yet. The services differentiate themselves in ways which rule this out. For example, S3 trades sophistication for scalability/reliability/performance: you can't do a complex SQL LIKE query. You can store and retrieve blobs of data based on a key, and that's about it.
I think as such services become more and more the mainstream way to do things, standards will emerge. Users will want the freedom to switch providers on a whim, move their data around, test against free local storage, etc.
The APIs used are all based on Web Standards already. Making an abstraction layer to make them look the same is fairly trivial.