I have found SL can offer you 12*1 TB drive based systems, after RAID-5 and Win 2003 install you get just over 10 TB of storage. The monthly price works out to $1000/Month.
I know some time ago LeaseWeb offered these type of storages....any one else know of any others ?
Amazon S3 works out to about $1500 for 10 TB
I would like to find a host with good quality & uptime that has large disk capacity for hosting IMAP email, about 10 to 20 gigs in size per domain.
I know of places like Bluehost and powweb but I'm not crazy about the 'overselling' issues related to them....
Any Ideas?
What would be the site hosting capacity of a dedicated server in terms of numbers of small sites.
1000 visitors a day for example.
Perhaps 5 page views a vistor and each site having a VBulletin as a sub-domain.
Would it be best to run them all off one dedicated server or each site just off a small hosting plan?
For organizational purposes it seems the dedicated server would be the way to go?
I have a website that is approx 50GB, that I essentially would like to take offline for a while. Obviously, while the site is offline, I don't want to be paying for my server.
Can anyone let me know of some options to "store" this mammoth of a site. Downloading it locally is not an option, so it needs to stay in the cloud for the lowest possible price.
Our congregation needs webspace to archive mp3 and mp4 files of the weekly messages. Low mp3 is about 3 MB size. High mp3 is about 20 MB size. mp4 video is about 325 MB size. We would provide links to the files so they could be downloaded - no online streaming is needed. Also no normal website stuff - just file storage space and ability to download by anyone who has the URL links to the files.
1and1.com has 250 GB storage with 2.5 TB/mo bandwidth usage for $10/mo. Their phone rep said this type of use of their web space is OK. I wouldn't even look any further except I've read a lot of bad reviews about them.
on good hosting setups for getting large amounts of disk space.
I would like to be able to offer up to 2Gb storage space for 100s, maybe up to a few 1000 users - any solution should scale well. The files would be static files that might be up to 400Mb in size.
It would be nice to be able to give users FTP access to their disk space, although it's not a core requirement.
I'm currently running on a VPS. My site allows for large file uploads and downloads, with files over 600mb in size.
The server has issues when the site gets three or more requests for large file downloads. I'm trying to grow this site to thousands of users and it is hard to do when the site can't handle even three.
I've been told by my host that I need to upgrade to dedicated. My VPS only has 512mb RAM and one large file download is eating up that RAM. This is causing the issue.
I'm a newbie and while I knew I was risking a bit by going with VPS I do find it a bit annoying that these guys advertise 1TB of bandwidth per month but I can't even support downloading 1GB at the same time....maybe it's just me...
Anyway, I am now looking into moving the large files and the upload/download over to Amazon S3. If I do this I am expecting my RAM usage on the VPS to greatly decrease. Is this correct? If my PHP code is running on the VPS, but the actual file download via HTTP is coming from S3, that should not be a heavy load on my box, correct?
any opinions on S3?
I just moved my site to dedicated server due to shared hosting capacity problem. Again I am facing Too many connection problem, when i contacted go daddt they replied as follow
Quote:
Thank you for contacting Server Support. There are a couple of things you might want to check. First is how you have your httpd service configured. Make sure you have sufficient MaxClients defined in /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf. Additionally you will want to refer to your /etc/my.cnf file to make sure you have it configured to allow as many max_connections and max_user_connections as are needed.
I am using Redhat Fedora with Plesk as control Panel. Any help how i can change this Max_user_connections?
my main client wants to rehash his database. Now this is a 1.5m strong list. All legitimately collected with time/IP stamp, privacy policy, etc. These clients are from the online gambling industry (legally licensed).
The problem is many of these users subscribed to our services up to 4 years ago (not all are that old, but some are), and they haven't heard from us for up to 2 years (again, some heard from us more recently).
Anyway, I've never deal with that number of emails and potential bounces. Obviously, the first round of emailing will have a large number of bounces, but that will quickly subside.
So, can you guys point me to a quality dedicated server, with at least 4 IPs (hopefully 10) and that can handle this type of activy? I'll be glad to sign up under an affiliate link if I can get a good answer.
I am trying to develop plans for my small 'datacenter'. My Question is how many shared hosting users (sites) can be on one server. While this question is broad, please assume a general distribution of users (sites) and the following server configuration (and lets ignore the datacenter network/uplink for the meoment):
Xeon Quad Core 5410 processor
8 GB RAM
Windows 2003 or 2008 Server O/S
How about if a mySQL database is added (to the same server?)
I recently started looking at some of the panel systems and it seems that a typical configuration is 'all-in-one', that is a Web Server, Database and email server - do these perform well?
Is there any rule of thumb for Windows servers such as zz MB Ram per user; # of users per processor; # of user per processor core?
I would like some advice and to see if this is a good approach to setup a server / web business.
The idea is to start off providing very basic web hosting functionality for smaller sites.
I was thinking about purchasing two similar or identical servers (RAID1 disks) + server fully mirrored.
In case 1 falls out the 2nd one takes over. DNS services is at startup located on other servers in the DC.
If this works out then I'd be looking at increasing servers with clusters or LVS.
I'm having a very hard time finding resources and information of the load and server capacity.
I was thinking about a system like this:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 , RAID 1 SATA disks (preferrably Raptor), 2 GB of RAM.
This would then be running LAMP. I would limit the traffic to 5-10GB transfer / month per account.
(most account would not nearly get up to this figure).
Is there a ballpark figure at about how many web sites this server could handle ?
Are we talking about 50 ? 20 ? 100 ?
Does anyone know of a .RU host/provider that offers large scale storage servers? looking for something with a 8 or more drive configuration...
Russian speaking only would be fine also.
I'm trying to start a website on a shoestring budget, but my programmer and host want to squeeze more out of us. We currently have a Custom VPS, w/cPanel and WHM. Everytime I try to upload a file(s) more than 10 mb, it will not go thru. My programmer told me to ask the server to increase capacity, they tell me it will cost me. My programmer says the same thing. Now if my programmer can do it, I assume it will be done through cPanel. Is there anyway I can do it myself, so for example, a file of lets say 25 mb will get uploaded? I have access to my cPanel.
View 14 Replies View RelatedI've been asked to look for a offsite ftp server solution as an alternative to having one inhouse attached to a 20-100mbps leased line. It will be used for storing ISO images of DVD's from client sites, must have a fast connection, reliable and full security.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have a website which has about 20K users, and now I am using VPS plan at LunarPages.
However, I have encountered a trouble of out-of-memory. Although I have configured my Apache and MySQL carefully, the 512M memory is not enough. Therefore, the users' expirence is not good these days because my site is very unstable.
I contacted Lunarpages, asking them whether I can upgrade my VPS to bigger RAM, but they said the ONLY way to get a RAM bigger than 512M is to upgrade to dedicated hosting plan.
The following are some stats of my website:
Total Members: 20k
Online at the same time: max 600, average 300
The Lunarpages VPS plan:
www[dot]lunarpages[dot]com/virtual-private-server/
disk space: 20G
RAM: 512M
price: $42 / mo
Now I am not sure whether to migrate to didicated hosting plan, because currently, the main problem is just the size of RAM. Other resources e.g (CPU, network etc. ) are not my bottleneck. So I think it seems not worthwhile for me to migrate to the dedicated hosting plan with a doubled price (even more, almost 3x if I need 1G RAM), just for a larger size of RAM.
Can you guys give some suggestions to choose a VPS provider for my site?
The factors taken into my consideration include:
* RAM size: at least (1G for peak, 768M garantee). The bigger, the better. Nice if can choose larger size when needed.
* price
* bandwidth: 1T/mon?
* easy to upgrade to dedicated host: just in case that one day I will have to use dedicated.
* whether there are coupons for a lower price.
I am trying to find out how many 3 minute videos can be stored on a dedicated server that holds 500GB of Disk Space and how many videos can be viewed at the same time if it has 1500GB of Bandwidth.
We are starting a user-generated site that will potentially receive a lot of videos and someone is trying to persuade us to use a media platform that charges based on views instead of a dedicated server. They are saying the server will not hold many videos nor will large amounts of videos be able to be viewed at the same time.
I have a request to built a standard 32 bit Windows 2003 server as big as possible using standard parts. I am thinking if i use 750GB x 4 Raid 5, that will give me 2.1TB of usable space. Is there any limitations or bottlenecks I should be wary about?
View 7 Replies View RelatedI'm moving a large, 4 gig site between 2 servers (both have cpanel... if that's an option). Is there a way to do it quickly and correctly? How would I transfer such a large site?
View 3 Replies View RelatedAs you can see I have questions. Until I saw and read some posts on this forum I thought I had some answers...
I was looking into a VPS with 1and1.com
Seemed to have good stats, and is a fairly large company. The plans were nice, was going to start off on their VPS 2 package with 20GB/2000GB, 245MB ram burstable to 512MB. All was well, since their packages seemed to offer the most for the least, if you know what I mean. I also liked the ability to upgrade the package without interrupting my service.
I read some posts here, and looked into a VPS even more, and now Im not so sure about 1and1.com or the thought of even having a VPS.
I have no experience with a VPS. So running it would be all new. Im not computer illiterate and I have taken many network and network operating classes. So I have some experience with command line linux. I have messed with some IIS, and a LAMP. On the other side, it scares me that I could f**k something up and bring down the site.
Now, for my needs. The site when launched has a predicted demand of a few thousand users over the course of a month. This is a business site, so downtime, and a shared environment don't seem to make sense. The site is very mysql intensive, at least by my standards. Most pages have 3-6 queries, main pages can have 10+, and most user actions include a few queries. The most load I could fathom would be all 1,000-4,000 users hitting the site hard for 3-4 days. This is now, next 'season' could be twice that load. In between seasons seasons we were going back to shared until the site starts making more money, and we fill in the off season with some other money making service.
The reason why I thought VPS was budget, and just we wouldnt want to be on a shared hosting plan, and somehow our demand was larger than expected and they shut down the site. So do yall think that a VPS is the right way to go? We have the budget to go VPS($40-$80) a month for 3 months, before going back to shared.
About 1and1.com: I read a few threads, some recent, that seem to say they oversell even a VPS. This doesnt make much sense since its supposed to gaurente those resources to me. The company is so big, but even these few posts and accusations are keeping me from commiting. My main concern is that between when we launch it and when our first spike of demand hits is only 2 months, so I dont want to learn that 1and1.com sucks firsthand.
Ive seen other hosts that this forum sponsers, so I assume there is *some* prefernce to use them, but like jaguarpc.com VPS plans seem to be a little more $ for a little less (storage and bandwidth) when comparing to other deals.
I'm completely torn on going the absolute budget route vs spending more for something that'll allow easy upgradeability in the future. I basically need lots of space but file sending-- media like mp3s, video, etc.
it'll be raid 5 and I'll need at least 2-3TB initially but the ability to expand would be nice.
option 1:
nice chassis with plenty of hotswap bays with sas expanders
expensive sas raid card
option 2:
cheap chassis to serve "immediate" needs and go with more later.
not sure what I'd use as a card? maybe even onboard?
regarding reliability: I once saw a database of failure rates of different models. raptor was the most reliable of the "desktop" drives. anyone have the link? I'm wondering of the seagate ES drives are worth the extra money vs the non-ES drives. they're supposedely more reliable and the "server versions" of sata drives.
Is it true that grub won't boot if your raid array is bigger than 2 terabytes?
View 8 Replies View Relatedbuilding a mass storage server, but unsure whether it is better to go for most space per system, or most space per U.
Looking at making 2 storage servers sometime in the future, one more for performance (15k 300gb SAS drives) and another for more storage (bunch of 1TB SATA drives). Both would act as iSCSI targets and likely have multiple gigabit ethernet connections bonded together.
Some options I am looking at:
1) HP DL320s provides 12 drives in 2U, or 6 drives per U. Upgrade it to 512mb batter backed cache and it does RAID6. Probably the densest storage U.
2) Supermicro has a 3U chassis that does 16 drives, or 5 1/3 drives per U. Pair that with one of the newer Areca SAS controllers and up to 2gb onboard cache and it should scream.
3) Supermicro also has a 3U chassis with 15 drives... just 5 drives per U, though it is ~$200 cheaper than the 16 bay one. Probably a mute point, since either way, it is less storage per server and less storage per U.
4) Get a simple 1-2U case and use external JBOD enclosures. Could put in multiple RAID cards, hook it up to multiple 3U 16 bay enclosures, and really squeeze in a lot of storage per server.
Anyone else been in a similar boat? Overall, not looking for a real dense configuration, with like 10-20 servers of this config, so don't *need* to squeeze in more TB per U, but it is one way that I've been looking at it.
Perhaps, in a way torn between the pre-built DL320s and the white label Supermicro approach. DL320s is a nice packaged system, support, iLO, etc. Supermicro allows more space and likely more performance (Areca likely better than the HP SmartArray), but no iLO, no single source for support, etc.
I have a question if it is possible to use my local server as database storage and even some uploaded files. I am planning to host my website even in a shared hosting server provided that I could used my local server as data storage.
View 2 Replies View RelatedLinux Storage Server Partitioning
We are puting together a Linux Storage server which will have 4 x 1TB SATA Hard Drives connected to Hardware raid configured at level 10.
We plan to use this box initially for NFS services but in the near future iSCSI targets so would like to make a setup optimal the first time.
What is the best way to layout the drive partition’s for this setup?
My thought is
-100MB /boot ext3
-Rest in LVM
--LVM Group
---LVM001 2048MB SWAP
---LVM002 10GB /
---LVM003 500GB /nfs
---LVM004 500GB /iscsi
Is this an efficient setup and provide a great deal of flexibility down the road? We will end up having more than one iscsi target running on this box in the end. Also does LVM experience a performance hit ?
This is my first post here, though I've been an occasional reader for a long time.
I currently have a VPS at Godaddy, plus shared hosting at Godaddy, 1and1, and Namecheap.
I'm very unhappy with Godaddy, and not terribly thrilled with 1and1. Also, I want to consolidate my sites.
I have appx. 25 sites, with plans for another 20-25. Most are either WP blogs, or static informational sites (using Xsitepro). Most are low-volume (appx. 100 visitors/day). A few, maybe 5, are low-medium volume (a few hundred visitors/day).
The sites are pretty basic, mostly Adsense, affiliate sales, and the like. No streaming anything except the occasional video clip.
I'm considering Futurehost's current offer for 50% off lifetime on their Titanium package w/ cPanel. This provides 1Gb RAM. Any reason to think this would not be adequate for my current and future plans (currently appx. 25 sites, going up to 50 within 12 months)?
I'm pretty sure bandwidth will be way more than adequate, I'm just wondering if a 1Gb VPS will be enough for all my sites.
I'm building a storage server out of spare parts that are lying around here at the office. Purchasing a brandnew server kinda overshoots it's target, since all basic hardware is available lika a big Chieftec 4U casing with 2x 4drive SATA hotswap bays.
The machine will just be dumb storage for saving our backups.
The plan is to add a decent serverboard, proc and some ram as a baseline. On top of that a 3ware 8-port RAID-controller with 8 1TB harddrives (seagate has some nice ones).
Now the only issue i'm having is powerconsumption. The case has an 460W PSU, but I'm not sure if that's enough.
We are going to offer web space to our students and we want to build a new server just for this purpose. We were looking at buying a storage array, a RAID card, and a server. I have no problems building a server; however, I have never built anything with an external enclosure. I am thinking about buying this storage array:
www newegg com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816702010
I plan on installing hard drives in every drive bay for a total of 12 drives.
The problem I'm having is I don't know what type of RAID card to buy. I saw this one; but, I don't know if it will work with this storage array.
www newegg com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816116062
Thanks so much for any light you can shed on this! I apologize for the link but I do not have enough posts insert URLs.
A question about backups:
So, we have a dedicated server with 2 x 146GB SAS HDD Hot Plug (max 4-6) and running WHM/cPanel
the two disks are in RAID.
Noticed, cpanel wasn't making backups, so apparently we need to install additional disks for it to start to do so. cpanel makes 3 backups - daily, weekly, monthly; home directory is set to around 100GB. So does that mean we would need to put in two additional SAS disks per server just to manage backups or does anyone have other experience how this is best dealt with?
What does customer mean when he says he needs -"switch that has 10g of egress capacity to the internet"
View 2 Replies View Related