# What is the difference between average daily sessions vs average daily hits for website traffic?

https://www.eurovps.com/blog/how-much-ram-cpu-storage-iops-vps-needs/

to come up with a rough estimate on sizing.

For bandwidth consumption, the example used there is

``````Page Size ± = 1.8MB
Average Page views per Session: 5.97
Average Sessions per Day: 1,500
Bandwidth Consumption per Day: 16,119MB (16GB)
Bandwidth Consumption per Month: 16GB x 30 Days = 480GB
``````

I was trying to map this formula based on the factual information I have for a website whose hardware sizing I am trying to arrive at and below is the data for it

Based on my assessment,

The page size for my website can be 1.8 MB on an average.

The part where I need some help is that for the formula to arrive at bandwidth, can I use number of hits per day in place of average sessions per day?

If I do, my equation comes to 1.83162161 = 875669.4 MB i.e. 875.6 GB

• a visit is not an actual hit to the server, page view is or as you said you can use total hits per day. `total hits per day` * `avg page size` Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 11:39
• I removed the second question because it is subjective and makes the question also too broad Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 15:51

While that link is quite useful, I don't think it is helpful to you.

A hit on a website is viewing a single page while a session would be all the hits on that site from a single browser in a given period (loosely, when someone visits the site and looks around other pages, that whole interaction is a session. Because the web is historically stateless, it is difficult to tell when a session starts and ends, so an approximation has been made).

Based on your assumptions, your maths looks wrong - if there are 5,027,000 page views per month * 1.8 megabyte per view, that comes to 9,048,600 = 8.63 terabytes (9048600 / 1024 / 1024)

Note that the result makes a lot of assumptions that are likely incorrect - particularly that a page is 1.8 megabytes and that the heavy parts of it (ie the images) are not cached. While its plausible, it does not seem likely for a site with that many hits.

• So do you reckon the factor of average number of pages visited per user (3 pages in this case) is not to be factored for the monthly backup? Commented Dec 14, 2021 at 12:26
• Sorry dont 7nderstand what monthly backups have to do with anything. Its impossible to meaningfully advise ratios from what you have provided as it very much depends on the nature of the site and how its been optimised. You should be able to get very accurate answers by analysing the log files and/or implementing bandwidth monitoring in the current site if you have access to it. It you provide more details about (a) what you are trying to achieve and ,(b) what level of access/visibility you have we may be able tog uide you better... Commented Dec 14, 2021 at 17:48
• Its certainly possible the provided figures are accurate but they "feel" wrong - I wonder how relevant "bot" activity is. (Most bots do not look at images, greatly reducing the bandwidth used). Its also somewhat novel you are focussing in traffic transferred but dont appear to be considering network/connection speed. Commented Dec 14, 2021 at 17:53

What does the 1.8MB consist of? Usually the first page view uses much more bandwidth, as any additional hits has much of the static content (css, js, images) cached. So visits*page size:

5270000*1.8 = 9486000MB (9.486TB) per month

/30 = 316.2 GB per day

The additional views per visitor will add some traffic, but at the same time repeated visitors with some static content already cached will likely use less, so without any additional info I would just use 316 per day (or maybe 400-500 GB to be on the plus side) as a rough estimate.

But it really depends on how much of the 1.8MB is static, cachable content, and how many repeated visitors you get. Also make sure it's actually loaded from your domain, if some of the content comes from 3rd party servers (for example ads), you can subtract it.