DNS Cluster Pair
Jun 8, 2009
On setting up a pair of CPanel DNS only servers, I decided to use 2 Virtual Servers from 2 seperate companies - one Xen and the other was Openvz. Reason behind it was in case something happens to the company or the virtualization technology implemented, I'm not screwed.
Guess what! Next day my Openvz node (I will not name the provider) went south and I'm on one leg right now. I'm kinda pleased with myself for having this laid out from the beginning and DNS is still working fine.
Now I'm thinking of having different OS - one linux and the other freebsd. Am I paranoid and over-the-top?
View 1 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Mar 5, 2007
it was about 2 yrs back when I subscribed to WHT and diligently went through the webHosting threads to decide on a suitable webHost. My search ended with PAIR. I chose PAIR basically bcuz I wanted peace of mind which I wasnt sure that other cheaper webhosts cud provide after reading lukewarm reviews(-ve and +ve) about them. The only downside to PAIR was it was costly and I did a lot of spelunking online(for a week atleast) but found almost zero -ve reviews about PAIR.
i am not here to praise PAIR cuz its a solid company anyway.
The thing is I have a basic account with PAIR which doesnt have MySql/CGI....etc. I am planning to start a few blogs and install a CMS like Joomla. Obviously I will be needing databases and scripting. I can upgrade to an Advanced account with PAIR which has all the features I need. BUT that will cost me double the basic accnt.
So heres the dilemma-
Should I upgrade and stay with PAIR.
OR
Should I change to another cheaper Webhost
The deciding factor-
1) PEACE OF MIND- translates to A class service and support.
2) Somewhat ECONOMICAL
I was wondering whether Lunarpages will be a good idea.
forgot to add- my bandwidth(10GB +) and storage(1GB +) requirements aren't high.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Oct 4, 2009
I'm at Pair.com since 2000.
I started a website in HTML, then by different CMS (SPIP, Joomla), and now I use several PHP shopping carts scripts (Virtuemart, CS-Cart). Currently I have 10 sites.
I NEVER had a hacking attempt in 9 years. None security concerns. No downtime more than 20 minutes. Cumulated over the last 9 years, all downtime are less than 4 hours.
You can check by yourself any downtime of any Pair.com server, because Pair.com downtime archives are easy to check, on-line and updated in real time:
[url]
My only concern is spam. When one of my email address catch too much of spam, I just need to close and open up a new address to defeat it (sorry, it's the easy way to fight with spam, but I'm not enough smart to setup SpamAssassin).
The speed of my shopping carts is great (I'm on a shared server).
That's why I stay at Pair.com: (for me) There's nothing better!
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jun 19, 2008
Which DC is considered more reliable?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 19, 2008
some reliable alternative, located in the same features and price range as pair networks does (pair.com),
they offer multiple domain hosting on a $18/month, with a $15/month if you order annually. so any alternative to that?
I need multiple domain hosting, and good servers.
in example ICD Soft is a decent host but they offer 1 site per a client.
Is it correct that i would rather get good and reliable shared hosting, over a bad and cheap VPS?
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 19, 2009
The great team over at Pair has treated our website (www.Team-BHP.com) exceedingly well. In fact, I'd also posted a review of my experience way back in 2005 (Linky). I'm a pretty demanding customer, yet have no complaints with Pair through this long association. Says a lot, wot?
However, I see Team-BHP outgrowing Pair in the near future. Our traffic increases by atleast 25 - 30% each quarter, and we are currently hosting on the QS5 server level. The server does choke occasionally during peak hours, hence an upgrade is inevitable sooner rather than later. The next (and final) level of upgrade from Pair is the QS6.....which is pretty expensive @ $1,500 bucks a month! I've seen other hosts offering the same kind of juice for half the money, yet never moved away from Pair simply because of their solid service + uptime. However, now that we are growing (and are poised for a more fruitful future ), what are some viable options I can look at?
Our requirement is QUALITY : Outstanding levels of service, uptime, reliability & security are imperative.
1. Any other reputable hosts that you may recommend? Our requirement would be standard fare for a medium size website (dual xeon, 8gb ram, 3 or 4 15K SAS raid 10 hard disks, backup, 100Mbs public + 1000Mbs private port and about 3000 GB of bandwith a month)?
2. Is co-location a good idea, considering that our core team really isn't all that tech-friendly?
View 11 Replies
View Related
Jul 6, 2008
Ok just some quick background. I'm developing a website that will start out small, and possibly grow. I know everyone has that dream, and many fail, so I'd like to start out small but be able to expand with the SAME hosting company (I don't want to have to switch hosts if the site ends up having a lot of traffic).
I have limited server administration experience, so want a clustered or shared hosting environment. I want a reputable company that I can grow into if necessary, and my budget is around $20 to $30 per month. Here are the ones I'm considering:
- iMountain : They offer a clustered environment and 500 GB transfer for just $30. Unfortunately, I think they are in California - is location a problem (as I am in Ohio).
- Cartika : They offer a clustered environment and allegedly have unparalleled support. But they are pretty expensive -- 25 GB transfer for $25, and based in Canada.
- Pair : They have a 200 GB transfer plan for just $30. They are also very close (Pennsylvania) to where I am. However, I believe you are on a non-clustered shared server, and they charge a $35 setup fee.
- FusedNetwork : They offer 100 GB transfer for just $20 and use cPanel (which I'm familiar with). However I've read a lot of controversy on here about FusedNetwork & Hostjury -- I don't want to sign up with a company if allegations of shady business practices are actually true.
Which one do you think I should go with? Does the location of the servers matter at all? Is being on a "cluster" instead of just plain "shared" that big of a deal? Am I overlooking anything else?
I'm leaning toward "Pair" right now, unless clustering turns out to be important.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jul 17, 2008
I’ve found pair Networks via this forum and have been its customer for more than 2 years now, which gave me quite a good insight in this company. So here some thoughts about pair Networks.
Some background
Pair operates its own Data Center with over 1.500 servers, hosting more than 190.000 sites. If you are concerned about the server saturation, these numbers are speaking for themselves pretty much. Among the customers are such high-profile sites as Barack Obama, The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code), Tom's Hardware etc. Quite impressive and it actually says a lot about the host’s structural reliability.
Stability
It’s a truly business class host with an amazing stability. The server load is always nice below 1. During more than 2 years the site I’m hosting there was down for two times: once due to the massive ddos, and the second time due to the planned server maintenance.
Technical support
I’ve got phone and e-mail support on my plan (webmaster). The standard support response time is reasonably soon. The so called ‘urgent’ support reacts literally immediately. The nice thing with Pair is that you actually don’t need any support, because all services are up and running at all time.
Control Panel
Pair is using a custom CP. It’s transparent and as useful as a CP could be. I can’t remember a situation when I was missing some feature in this panel.
Price
Pair is not cheap, but it’s not overpriced either. From my point of view, they were able to find a really well balanced price for the level of services they’re offering. If you’re a hobbyist using your site for fun (and therefore the stability and uptime is not really an issue), you can find tons of cheaper hosts. If you’re hosting any critical site, where the stability, speed and uptime do matter, you’d better pay a few bucks more: servers are not oversaturated and overloaded, no kids experimenting with 'custom' scripts, best hardware, best manpower etc. I’d like not to be involved in over- and underselling discussion, Pair has earned its stripes based on this business model.
Speed
Download speed (from Belgium) is as good as it gets from any US-based industrial-grade site through our broadband line: approximately 400 KB/s. Downloads from Apple, Adobe etc. sites have exactly the same speed.
These all were PRO’S, where are the CON’S?
In more than 2 years I haven’t noticed any serious, structural shortcoming. And I don’t like to make it up just for the sake of false objectivity. Pair Networks is by far the best host I’ve ever had.
Site for verifying purposes: [url]
View 14 Replies
View Related
Apr 26, 2008
Pair is really well respected (from what I've heard), but their dedicated servers are a lot more expensive than many I've looked at. I've honestly wanted to use them because of their reputation, and my uptime being critical, but wanted to see if there are less expensive servers who are just as good...
View 7 Replies
View Related
Mar 19, 2008
Anyone had any experience with setting up an ftp cluster? We have tried to search Google and haven't been successful in such a solution so I came here to ask if anyone else has ever thought about doing it. Or done it and how did you do it? I'm looking in to it for windows. 99% of my servers are windows.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Aug 8, 2007
I see more and more hosts popping up (and older hosts switching to) offering what they call clustered load balanced plans. These plans are mostly on the low end price wise (sub $10/month), and the marketing speak tells of zero downtime, intelligent clustered, load balanced, failover, will wash your clothes approaches to keeping websites up 110% of the time.
I guess what I fail to grasp is are these plans really, truly load balanced clustered approaches, or is it more of a case of we have 1 DNS server, 1 mail server, 1 web server, 1 mysql server, and a backup server that in an emergency has rsyncs each hour to "failover" to and screw up your dynamic data?
If the webservers are load balanced, what about accounts that use SQLite db's, or berkeley db's, are these maintained 100% in synch, and if so, how? If one server goes down, and the other picks up the slack, won't the db's be out of synch and data contention will occur? Are sessions including SSL truly handled correctly?
Same for MySQL. Is this true two way replication with fault tolerant switchovers between master and slave to preclude data loss and corruption on hot switch overs when a server fails?
I guess I just see everyone slapping a "clustered" label on things, and speaking of load balancers, etc... all for the cup of coffee a month. But I am highly suspect if these plans are truly load balanced, or is it a band-aid approach to load balancing?
Just the ranting of a an older hosting owner who's just not sure what many companies are truly offering when they speak of clustered, load balanced, more uptime than Viagra type of solutions...
View 6 Replies
View Related
Mar 19, 2008
We have been running two dedicated servers for a number of years now and we use Cpanel and DirectAdmin for the control panels. Today we had a big problem with our first server which effectively made the 150 sites on it out of action and it exposed a potential issue to us that if the server died that we'd have a big task restoring all the sites from the backup drive. I've heard that some hosting companies strip data across more than one machine and I presume this is a cluster, and I was wondering if this is the best method and what the most cost effective route would be to do it?
View 0 Replies
View Related
Jun 26, 2007
I was wondering if there is any way to connect 40-50 Linux VPSes in a cluster. Most of the cluster solutions out there want you to recompile a custom kernel which cannot be done on a vps. The virtual machines are on different hardware nodes and I don't have access to those since I am renting the VPSes from another company.
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 2, 2009
What is the best way to make sure my website is 100% available all the time.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Apr 2, 2008
we are planing to build a 5 system mysql cluster for our website. i have few questions regarding this. As per our provider, we need mod_ndb for apache to connect database cluster. (SQL API). we have 5 system apache cluster.
Mod_ndb configuration, we need to add all table structure in http configuration. Is there any other way to connect database? or any other way to configure mod_ndb without adding table structure inside http configuration.
any other better way to connect database
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 1, 2008
All my sites that depend on MySQL at iMountain have been down all day. I was in the process of converting some of them to Joomla/Drupal but I'm having second thoughts now.
My question is - shouldn't "clustering" prevent this sort of thing happening? I thought it implied some level of redundancy.
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 13, 2008
I try to keep on the up and up about hosting and constantly looking for a new host to provide better services, but I saw an article in TheWHIR that got me to wonder if people are making stuff up or is it just "marketing" or real?
Ok, so the article:
[url]
I hope adding a link to the article is ok?
First of all I have NEVER heard of cPanel ever offering clustered technology. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is real? I have really only used HSphere which I know has some cluster abilities and even those hosts don't advertise "clustered" services.
Then I see other so called cPanel wannabe clustered services which they call cPanel clustered failover or something like that which to me is ummm..more fault tolerant hosting than actual cluster hosting.
Basically, am I just not understanding the meaning of "cluster"?
I think cluster has to do with the proper allocation of reasources spread across the network of defined processes, though, I have been wrong in the past...
View 14 Replies
View Related
Dec 22, 2008
i have a site which involves heavy cpu use but its in a small private network with 3 other boxes which are pretty much idle, so im wondering is their a way to use the idle cpu time /ram possibly on my main server via the network ?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 21, 2008
I have a total DB in size of 800MB... Recently I had to make a few configurations in the management tool and had to do an intialize restart... Not sure what's taking so long, but it's been nearly 8 hours and I have not seen any of my tables that used to be there.
When I do du -sh /var/lib/mysql-cluster, it shows that I have 800M /var/lib/mysql-cluster...
View 2 Replies
View Related
Sep 2, 2007
I just need a bit of feedback, I currently have a forum, getting around 20-35k uniques per day.
I am currently on a Intel C2D, 4gb Ram, paying around $185/month.
Would setting up a cluster help me reduce the costs or load?
Cluster = 1 server for httpd, 1 server for mysql, 1 server for images?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Oct 22, 2007
Question though on RAID choices... I'm considering getting 3 x 250GB SATA drives. Would it be better to make two of them a RAID-1 mirrored pair for my OS, home directories, and use the 3rd drive seperately for backups, swap, and perhaps some logs.... OR should I put all three drives into a RAID-5 set and treat it as a single logical drive?
my math says usable space would actually be identical... with 465GB usable in either setup. RAID-1 would be faster for I/O with no parity overhead... but one drive would not be redundant. On the other hand, RAID-5 would be fully redundant but have parity overhead for writes.
I think I just sold myself on RAID-5, didn't I.
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jul 27, 2006
I´m running 4 servers on a cpanel - dns - cluster.
- 1 running cpanel (srv01)
- 3 running cpanel-dns-only (cluster01 - cluster03)
My DNS config is:
srv01 - dns1.domain.com
cluster01 - dns2.domain.com
I ´ve setup on srv01:
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
- cluster03 (standalone)
On cluster01:
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
- cluster03 (standalone)
And on cluster02 and cluster03, I did something like that:
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster03 (standalone)
And
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
1. So, is that correct?
2. It seems that when I click on 'syncronize all DNS records on all the servers' only cluster01 and srv01 got all the DNS records. So is it normal?
Yet If I add a domain on cluster02 for example, where I need to add the DNS? cluster02 named.conf or on cluster01/srv01?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Oct 18, 2006
Anyone have issues where after setting up cpanel dns cluster via whm, cpanel fails often on the clustered boxes?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 1, 2009
when cluster server will be avalaible?
and I'm curious about the space and bandwidth of this service
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jul 2, 2008
I'm planning to upgrade my servers to a more "enterprise-class" installation and would like to hear your advice for good managed hosting providers for this.
Currently I use RackSpace which are great but pricey (leased servers); in the past we had a colocation with another provider: it was good cost-wise and generally proffesional but alas the provider's infrastructure was not sufficiently resilient to natural disasters and unlikely but occurring infrastructure accidents.
My feeling is to stay with a more managed service rather than try to colocate again: we need someone making sure the hardware stays around 24/7 and makes sure to have the appropriate spare parts and expertise in the hardware they sell us. We can handle the software parts.
I'll probably stay with RackSpace because they can and have already built stuff like the below. But maybe there's another provider out there which fullfills similar needs for customers.
My needs are:
1.5 TB of shared storage (i.e. SAN or NAS; must be reasonably fast (maybe 10MB/s sustained) and 99.99% up); add .5TB per year
4 application servers in various configuration (8-16G of RAM, quad or dual-quad Xeons)
2 database servers (With fast drives in RAID-10 but not much disk; most of our data is not in an SQL server)
Some appropriate load balancing appliance (with at least 99.99% reliability)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Redundancy to a point (i.e. redundant mechnical parts, hot-swap drives)
Usual stuff: managed backup, private network, hardware monitoring with fast hardware exchange
No Linux system administration beyond a sane installation needed
99.99% uptime on the network and infrastructure (i.e. if an UPS blows up or a router goes down this should not affect me; redundant connections to multiple network providers etc. etc). RackSpace has a 100% network uptime guarantee and in the many years we've been with them in one form of another I haven't been disappointed in their competency on that front.
This would be in some US datacenter. Does someone have experience with such a scale installations with other providers (or RackSpace too) ?
(I wrote "SAN or NAS" because I'm not really yet sure if some NFS server or maybe shared storage via SAN and something like RedHat's GFS will be best for my needs; it would be nice if the provider was capable of advicing on things like that).
View 7 Replies
View Related
Feb 23, 2008
I have started to move my websites over to my UK Colocation But would like a little guidence on what the best solution would be.
I would like to build up a Server Cluster that will handle all of my sites really and also have redundancy, so If 1 server goes down the other Web/SQL/Whatever server will be used instead.
I have websites ranging from large forums to streaming & download websites.
Should I got for a setup for example:
X Web Servers + X Database Servers
Connected to X Storage (see link below)
Connecting the Web Servers in something like a a round robin config or use a Load Balancer / Other
OR Should I setup multiple:
Web Server + Database Server + Media Server
OR another config?
Below are my current setups
Current UK Setup (Colocation)
Web Server
Quad Core, 8GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 1
Quad Core, 8GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 1 (just ordered)
SQL Server
Quad Core, 4GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 10
Storage Server
HP StorageWorks NAS 1200s 1TB (just Ordered)
Link: [url]
Current US Setup (Dedicated Servers)
Web Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 3TB HDD
SQL Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 1TB HDD
Media Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 3TB HDD
Dual Core, 4GB Ram, 3TB HDD
Backup Server
Dual Core, 2GB Ram, 1TB HDD
View 5 Replies
View Related
Jun 9, 2008
We've come to a crossroad with our site and not sure where to take it from here. It would seem like a cluster option would be the best bet, but wanted to ask the professionals first to see if there were any other way to solve it.
The problem is (as usual) too high load making the servers slow. Actually, only the apache server. We recently seperated mySQL and apache on two servers to help out with the load. The mySQL server load is around 0.25-0.5 throughout the day, but the apache server load is almost always at 6.xx-10.xx.
Both servers has the following stats:
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q6600-S3 (Quad Core @ 2.4GHz)
RAM: 8GB DDR2
HDD: 750gb SATA2
Average Daily Stats:
Uniques: 60 000
Pages: 1 300 000
Hits: 14 700 000
BW: 95 GB
Concurrent users on vBulletin forums 250-700.
* Shouldn't an apache server with these stats be capable to handle the current visits?
* Could this perhaps be solved if we swapped the sata drive with a scsi/sas?
If we're moving to a cluster solution, we'd be looking at minimum 5 servers.
2x Load balancing servers
1x SQL server
2x Apache servers
Preferably we should have 2 SQL servers for redudancy, but for a site that is hobby based, it would be insane to pay around $1245-1490 a month just to keep it up.
Key stats from httpd.conf
Code:
ServerType standalone
KeepAlive Off
MaxKeepAliveRequests 100
KeepAliveTimeout 1
MinSpareServers 15
MaxSpareServers 20
StartServers 15
MaxClients 275
MaxRequestsPerChild 1000
I have root access if anyone needs more info.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Nov 16, 2008
I there any good shared or reseller host that has clustered mysql servers facility?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 27, 2007
i am going to use with hsphere preferently i want to use Dell blade server 1955 with exchange and sharepoint, cause the low HD capacity i will like to add and HD array could be NAS or SAN,
View 10 Replies
View Related
Jun 17, 2008
This is clearly the next logical step in hosting. Consider what RAID1 did for hard drive availability. Worried about your disk failing? No problem - throw in a duplicate. From a user/admin perspective the mirrored disks appear as one, highly reliable disk. Every modern OS supports this, even cheap motherboards support it, with a minimal amount of configuration.
The perfect high availability cluster should be completely transparent. Think about it... What if clustered hardware allowed you to manage a single instance of your chosen server OS with no worries about hardware/network/power failure?
The closest you can get to this finding a host that will give you a dual power supply server connected to different power feeds, dual network cards connected to different switches, and hot-swappable mirrored hard drives. This solution still doesn't give you any protection from CPU, memory, or motherboard failure.
I want a solution that is as simple to configure and manage as simple RAID1 mirroring.
View 14 Replies
View Related
May 27, 2007
put together a high availability cluster for a PHP + MySQL based app to run on a LAN. We're going to use Linux, and cost is a major consern. The app itself doesn't use / need too much resources, as it will only be accessed by 2 / 3 people at a time, so I'm using the following:
2 identical PC's with:
3Ghz PIV CPU
1GB RAM
2x SATAII 160GB HDD space setup as RAID 1
10/100 Mbps LAN NIC's, on a 100MB 8 port switch
Up to now I have been running MySQL-Max 5.0.15 to run a MySQL master-master replication server, which works fine, but the setup involved a lot of manual work, and downloading of the right binaries.
Furthermore I used Linux Heartbeat todo auto switchover between the two servers & RSYNC to sync the application files between the two. This has been working fine untill one of the server's HDD's failed recently corrupting both HDD's
So, I need a better way of doing this, and want to meet the following requirements:
If 1 HDD fails on either server, the server still needs to be able to run without a problem.
Replacing a HDD & rebuilding the RAID array should be easy to manage, preferabbly over the net.
Setting up a cluster should be easy to manage, both for the MySQL DB server & the files that need to be synced between the two machines Re-installing the server should be easy todo as well.
For No.1 I have been thinking of setting up RAID 5 with 4x HDD's - how reliable / safe / redundant is this?
For No. 4 I have been thinking of using something like sysimager to backup the server once setup, but will / can it recreate the RAID array upon restoration? The MySQL DB & PHP files are being backed up to a removable HDD on a daily basis.
The client is 700Km's away, so we can't just drop-in to fix things as often as we like. Thus redundancy is of utter importance. Currently I'm running Suse 9.3, simply due to the fact that it's easy enough to tell the client over the phone howto do things with YaST. Suse 10.1 will be used for the new setup, but I could also use Fedora Core 5, and have also been thinking of using SME server 7.0.
View 1 Replies
View Related
