I am about to outgrow my current server and want to upgrade to a set-up with one web server (my current one) and a new separate database server. I am very happy with my current host (Liquidweb) and want to stay with them. So I need to decide which option from them will best suit my needs.
Questions:
1 - I have a standard LAMP website, but with a fairly large db and plans to add others. My understanding is that the biggest factor in db performance will be the amount of RAM I have installed. They offer a Q6600 Quad Core that will take 8GB of RAM. The only other servers they have which take more than 4GB cost at least $180/month more. I don’t think the extra CPU will make much difference, and I am hoping that 8GB will be enough RAM for a good while (my current box has 2GB, but that isn’t really enough anymore).
So I think that my choice is obvious, but I recognize that I am really only guessing and would appreciate any advice about whether or not this would, in fact, be the best server for me.
2- I can order the server with a 32 or 64 bit OS for the same price. I don’t have any idea regarding which would be better. I don’t know which system my current server is running or whether both boxes need to have the same OS. Also, I am currently running MySQL4 but will probably upgrade the new server to 5. I have read elsewhere that there is a 64 bit version of MySQL that is needed to make maximum use of installed RAM, but I really don’t understand all the issues involved here. Is there something I need to know before I set this server up to make sure that I get maximum performance from it? I will, of course, also be running PHP on it.
As you see, my understanding of server requirements is very limited.
I'm in the market for a dedicated server once more, and since Theplanet was going down hill the last time I was there (9 months ago), I don't imagine they've gotten much better (After the merger with Ev1).
So I need to find a new datacenter, however my problem is... I'm unsure what I want to go for - currently I have $1200 that I can dedicate to a server, so a 6 or 12 month plan would be ideal or possibly even co-location. As for the actual SERVER - I need a place that offers Linux/BSD, cPanel, at least 2gB of memory, and half way decent processors. Any help would be appreciated - the only datacenters I have been with over the past 5 years are Ev1/Rackshack, and Theplanet/Servermatrix.
I have an IBM System x3250 Intel Xeon 3040 Dual Core 1.87GHz/1066MHz FSB, 2x1MB L2 cache 2x512MB 667MHz PC2-5300 ECC DDR2 SDRAMs/8GB Max (4 DIMM) 250GB Simple Swap SATA HDD
This is mainly going to run MySQL database for my e-newsletter application. I do an email blast of about 100,000 email at a time about 3 times a week. Every clicks and every opens of newsletter will be recorded in the database. Is this server a right choice?
The 2 cpu's are xeon 1.8 with 512 L2 cache and 400 fsb
I am thinking of trying to give the server a little more power with faster processors, using the same board.
The board can take any xeon 603 pin cpu as long as it is 400 fsb.
So here is what I have found, that my server can take as far as cpu options, I am asking for more opinions on which choices of the following processors would be better for a busy server.
dual 2.8 xeon processors with 512 L2 cache
dual 2.0 xeon processors with 512 L2 cache and 1 gb L3 cache
dual 2.0 xeon processors with 512 L2 cache and 2 gb L3 cache
Please let me know your opinions, I have some ideas, but I am looking for feedback.
And please only talk about the xeons above, and not amd etc.
I saw an alphared banner the other day here on WHT, and checked out their prices, and WOW (Yes, I know the old adage...I don't need to hear it...)
I did some searching and read all about the drama that happened around them several years ago. I'm not interested in that. I want to know how they are now. Has the level of service gone up or is it still in the crapper?
I can only state my own experiences with Bluehost. As a longtime web designer I have been sending my clients to Bluehost for years. In fact I started a web service at that will do free setup and install of Wordpress if you open a account with Bluehost. I like to keep all my clients in one place. I have had no problems with Bluehost over the past five years. If a client's website starts to get many hits and more traffic than a standard shared hosting account can handle I then move them over to a real VPS. But if your just starting out Bluehost and a service like mine is a good choice.
I am a little upset because I host my forum and other sites on my friend's server who has dedicated server, but now he is closing his hosting business
My forum opens very fast with his servers but now I have to go to somewhere else, I just contacted Namecheap and asked if I can host my little-busy forum there or not on their shared hosting package.
They will reply me but I want to know your advices too about Namecheap. Is it good choice to host a VBulletin forum on shared hosting from Namecheap?
Or I should buy their Business Hosting Package?
I don't want to buy VPS or Dedicated Server because I don't have much knowledge of hosting and I have heard that VPS and Dedicated servers are very difficult to manage for person like me
I've decided to go with theplanet as a server provider. What OS do you guys recommend if the primary purpose of the server was to distribute media and large exe files?
I'm moving to another server in the next day. I've got a choice for an operating system (as I did last time). I thought I'd ask for opinions, thoughts, and experiences with the choices.
FreeBSD Fedora Core 7 CentOS
A little info about the sites. I host 2 Gallery sites, a fairly popular Drupal based site, a relatively static PHP site, and soon and osCommerce powered site. I use PHP and MySQL a good bit. The server is managed by Plesk 8.3 right now. Which takes me to my other question.
What other control panels are available that offer good feature sets and low overhead (resource wise)? I'm impressed with the look of Plesk, but the workings leave something to be desired. My server comes with Plesk unless I tell them otherwise. They don't offer an alternate control panel solution.
As far as technical knowledge goes, I work with Linux (SLES/SLED) on a fairly regular basis. So I'm not a complete rookie. But I definitely don't consider myself an expert.
I noticed a trend - I don't know if it's very new, but it can't be very old either - that quite a few people are looking for hosting and specifically ask that the host is not a reseller. Obviously they have somehow decided that a reseller is not a good choice for them.
A host that rents servers from a datacenter and then sells shared hosting and/or reseller hosting accounts or whatever other types of packages, is in fact reselling what it has bought from its provider. Despite that, it is generally regarded as a full-fledged host. Sure, they do take care that the servers are managed properly, that they are secure, they provide customer support, so they add to the original product that they have bought, but in essence they are resellers.
The first one is that the reliability, the uptime and server performance depend almost entirely on the upstream provider (the host behind the reseller). Considering that the reseller did a good job in finding a great upstream host, these things should be fine, but, unfortunately, in their search to get the best deal out there, many hosting resellers (if not most of them) end up being hosted for just a few bucks a month on highly overcrowded servers with stability and performance problems, frequent downtime etc. which will in turn translate into poor service for the end user.
The other major concern is the knowledgeability of the reseller. The very ease of becoming a reseller and the fact that almost anyone, or, as a WebHostingTalk user said it once, "anybody and his dog", can be a reseller, makes it very hard for some to trust a hosting reseller.
I would never say a reseller is a bad choice, but some things are not to be expected from a reseller. For example most resellers are a one man show and thus 24/7 365 days a year support can not be achieved without outsourcing some of it. This however is not a very cost effective solution for low volumes and this is why most resellers provide all the support themselves, which will obviously not be 24/7.
Also a reseller has only so much freedom on the server. A reseller cannot do some things and has to ask his own host to do them for him. That means it will take longer for those things to get solved.
On the plus side, a reseller often gets to know his customers and their needs and the client-reseller relationship often gets quite close. A friendly tone is worth for some people more than a 99.99% uptime statistic. If you're one of those people a reseller could very well be the right choice.
I am running some blogs on JustHost, a WordPress Web Hosting recommended by WordPress. You can visit my JustHost Review for reference.
I run a Travel and Tourism Agency and plan to host my website online so that my potential customers will be able to book tickets, reserve hotel rooms, rent cars etc. My website will be built using PHP with MySQL at the backend. I plan on targeting mainly customers within the UK at first but will expand soon.
I expect to be getting around 10,000 visitors a month to start with and will expand rapidly. What Webhost should I be looking at? What are the things that I need to look out for specifically? Should I go for Shared or VPS?
I have a pro-bono client...a gardening group, say 200 or so not-too-tech savvy folks who need hosting. A very small (16M) simple-minded site with 2-3 PHP scripts for form responses and a Gmail userid for receiving public questions and answering them. Okay? They need a site where, if I get run over by a semi, they can take over for awhile if needed, until they find someone else.
ASO is only for ubergeeks, as I've seen in their forum (especially), their wiki, and somewhat in their tech support. Even *I* am no ubergeek, much less, my clients. Hostgator for their smallest plan, at the $4.95 price requires 3-years up front, else $8.95 per year: a bit much for my not-for-profit group. (And Lifehacker says, Hostgator is just a reseller for The Planet...)
I am very interest about RackSpace Cloud site technology
http://www.mosso.com/cloud.jsp
Does any one over here using RackSpace Cloud Site
I have couple of sites hosted on a one virtual dedicated server, I get total about 100K+ hits per month. About 70GB bandwidth usage per month. Is cloud site technology is a good choice for me?
[mysqld] datadir=/var/lib/mysql socket=/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock # Default to using old password format for compatibility with mysql 3.x # clients (those using the mysqlclient10 compatibility package). old_passwords=1
I have Plesk 11.5 (service provider mode) on a Windows 2008 server IIS7.Most of my sites are developed in .asp and therefore i use a custom 500-100.asp error page that check s the IP of the visitor then displays either a friendly error, or if its my IP a full error of what has happened (it also emails me the error). This allows me to debug pages easily whilst developing and to keep an eye on anyone trying SQL Injection hacks on my sites (as the error and email also have session variables and IP address).I dont have root access to the server as it is a Webfusion dedicated server.I have following the Plesk documentation -
1) Switch on custom errors for the subscription 2) Look in virtual directories and navigate to error documents 3) Find the error in question (500:100) and change it to point at either a file or URL
FILE - I had the data centre add in the 500-100.asp error page in to the virtual template so that my page is available in the list of virtual files - this didn't work but that maybe because its not a static page??
URL - when i add the path it says its incorrect, if i add a fully qualified address, it accepts it but it doesn't work.give me a specific example of the URL that can be entered relative to the root as the format in the documentation isn't accepted. The last step is to restart IIS which is also an issue as i cant seem to do this from the Plesk panel..It is as if it isn't catching the 500:100 error, and only catching the general 500 error??
I am currently running Google Analytics/Urchin 5 (v5.7.02), on a server, the server has started to act up, (on its last legs etc) and now I am trying to transfer the Urchin Software to a new server, where it would work effectively.
However upon installing the urchin software on the new server and running it (localhost:9999), I am presented with An Action Items Page, and these following choices
This is the scenario, domain.com are setup on server1, however server2 also has the same profile of domain.com as we use ns3 and ns4 using domain.com. This works fine with the nameserver setup on server2.
However I encounter problems as the emails from server2 won't reach server1 as there are duplicate profile on server2.
My question is how do I setup the DNS in cpanel/whm from server2 so the emails from server2 will reach server1?
I just want to use a server for file sharing, it will have nginx and that's it. I'm looking at centos, or freebsd, but I been using centos forever now and I'm not sure how to use freebsd, should I just stay with centos?
Do I tell my hosting provider to just install the OS and give me ssh action and that's it? Don't install any control panels or any other stuff? I want one domain and one subdomain on it though and ftp action.
