I currently run a couple of forum-heavy websites on a Pentium D950 (3.4 GHz 800FSB Dual Core 2x2mb cache). The sites use most resources for mysql and php (via apache), plus some more for email and serving images via tux.
So now I'm looking for an upgrade. I've grabbed the following off the Softlayer website:
Quote:
Server CPU Speed CPU MHz CPU Cache Price
Intel Xeon 5050 2 x 3.00GHz 667MHz 2 x 2MB - HT $179
Intel Xeon 5130 2 x 2.00GHz 1333MHz 1 x 4MB $199
Intel Xeon 5140 2 x 2.33GHz 1333MHz 1 x 4MB $239
Intel Xeon 5160 2 x 3.00GHz 1333MHz 1 x 4MB $279
Intel Xeon 5310 4 x 1.60GHz 1066MHz 1 x 8MB $219
Intel Xeon 5320 4 x 1.86GHz 1066MHz 1 x 8MB $259
Now what do I make of this? First of all, I'm having a hard time relating the CPU speed to the clock speed. The 5050 seems alright to me, but I've read somewhere that Dempseys are already regarded as outdated, so obviously I'm underestimating the importance of clock speed? (Do I get the performance by basically multiplying the clock speed with the CPU speed?) Also, what's up with the quad core? Is that something worth considering for the purpose mentioned above, or will it be wasted on the four cores? What about the lower CPU speed of the quad core - will the faster dual core actually get the same or even more work done?
Or am I looking at the wrong brides and should rather run and get myself two cheapo servers with php on one and mysql on the other? (Or go with one of the above and just take two disks?)
I have set up a file/print server using samba on my home network that just uses a simple 4 port linksys router, so I'm relatively familiar with routers.
Its my understanding that a hub, is kind of like a router but w/o a "to modem" spot. So you would use a hub if you just wanted to connect some computers to have a LAN party or something, right? Where there'd be no internet connection. Is this correct?
As far as switches, I get the feeling they are like routers, only better? Because data centers and companies mostly use switches, not routers? Or am I way off? What exactly is different between a switch and a router.
As a supplamental question- I will be starting college next fall, and a friend of mine said that dorm students are not supposed to use routers, but rather switches. Any idea why this would be the case?
And also, along the lines of college networks. Say I wanted to take my server with me to my dorm, how would that work? I know this depends on the university, but how would such a large network like that work- would each dorm have its own public IP address? Or would the dorm have one public IP, then each room have an internal IP? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I've really only worked with simple home networking
I have really seen is linux hosting advertised - what is the real difference between linux and windows? They both use Apache and PHP - doesn't windows use more resources with it's GUI?
I have a lot of questions here so if you can't answer them all I understand. even pointing me somewhere where I could get the answers would be appreciated; hardware sites focusing on server hardware, forums focusing on such, etc.
we plan to have three different types of servers:
- db server (self explanatory. mysql. for forums, mysql driven sites.)
- file server (lots of files around ~2-10MB, consistant 70mbps right now, but we want more room for upgrades. needs a LOT of storage room.)
- web server (lots of php files, but also static things like plain html, images, etc. also includes all misc services for the setup-- dns, etc.)
could I be given a rundown for which hardware each of the three should have? I don't need specifics, even just knowing that more ram is important here while cpu doesn't matter as much, or that the fastest disks available are a must, etc would all be valuable info for me. despite that, I certainly wouldn't mind specific hypothetical hardware configs.
for the database server I'm assuming the more ram the better. not entirely sure about the cpu? also not positive on disks...
for the fileserver, how much ram would be practical or useful? disk io will be an issue I'm because plenty of people will be pulling files at once so the disk needs to read from multiple places. scsi (and even raptors) are not an option as we need 750GB+ of space on a reasonable budget. more ram will take some load of of the disks, but how much is neccessary / reasonable?
for the web server I'm assuming cpu first, then ram, but it'll likely need less ram than the db server?
I'm more lost on the disks than anything. scsi on the fileserver is not an option under any circumstances due to $/GB. for the db & web server I'm willing to pay for scsi if the performance increase really does warrant the extra money, but I'd like to be convinced before shelling it out. if you have benchmarks geared at server hardware when it comes to disks I'd really appreciate it.
also, what's the best way to network these together when colocated? each one with a dual gigabit ethernet port and then the communications go to and from the router?
I was wondering if it is possible to cluster 2 web servers and 2 mysql servers with only one server working as load balancer.
I am planning to use LVS (ldirectord and heartbeat).
Let's say I have 3 IPs allocated to the load balancing server.
111.222.111.222 (Main IP) 111.222.111.223 (Web Load Balancing IP) 111.222.111.224 (MySQL Load Balancing IP) If a connection is made to .223 it would pass the request to one of the web nodes. If a connection is made to .224 it would pass the request to one of the MySQL nodes.
Is it possible to do this?
If not, can I run, for example, nginx on 223 IP address to provide forward proxy? (Then it would not be able to HA but the main point is to load balance so)
Also, what would be the best way to keep the data same on both web servers? This is a web cluster for a very high traffic forum with a lot of uploads every hour so it has to do real time synchronization. I heard that DRDB is only one way and not two way so I'm not going to be able to use this.
I am just colocating servers and managing them myself, and renting services off of them. In the future I would like to start offering dedicated servers as well. I am wondering if many companies do this, or if its more of a general practice to just setup as a reseller? The worst part that comes to mind is thinking of how to do billing for the bandwidth per month. With my setup I would only be offering flat bandwidth packages (like 2TB a month) but even so, I cant think of anyway to automate it so WHMCS knows if they went over, if so, how much, etc.
I have recently purchased new hosting with a new supplier which uses a different kind of control panel - cpanel. So before I transfer our organisations website across I want to spend some time playing.
We purchased our domains with 123 reg and the host we have been using for a while is namesco our new hosting package is with neither of these suppliers.
Before I transfer our primary domain to the new host I'm doing a dummy run with one of our other domains and that's where i've come up with this name servers question.
The new host gave me the name of their 2 name servers.
But when I went to my control panel at 123 reg to change the name servers they were not using namesco name servers they were using 123's.
Do I want to change the name servers to the new name servers or not? I'm a bit confused as i was expecting to see namesco names servers?
Is that possible to have ns1.mydomain.com ns2.mydomain.com
Two differnet severs that means each having two different IPS? If so how?
the reason I ask is that I see a lot of hosting companies have thousands of users and many severs but they all ask their customers to point only to two name server ns1 and ns2
Say you are renting 2 (or more) dedicated web servers. How do you go about getting it so that www.yourdomain.com goes to one of the web servers? Do you need a 3rd server to redirect the request, or what?
if anyone had a recommendation on where to buy a decent used server (Just for DNS Purposes). Anywhere other than ebay? Anywhere local in the Greater Seattle/Everett/Tacoma, WA Area?
Cannot see my servers from office but sites are up and running. Servers are at AtlantaNap. Maybe weather?
Tracing route to mysite.com [xx.xx.xx.xx] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.1.1 2 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 10.21.1.1 3 58 ms 30 ms 30 ms at-4-3-0-1710.CORE-RTR1.PORT.verizon-gni.net [64 .222.212.44] 4 44 ms 44 ms 44 ms POS3-0-0.GW12.BOS4.ALTER.NET [208.214.102.193] 5 44 ms 44 ms 44 ms 0.so-3-0-0.XL2.BOS4.ALTER.NET [152.63.22.182] 6 63 ms 63 ms 137 ms 0.so-2-3-0.XL2.ATL1.ALTER.NET [152.63.101.49] 7 63 ms 63 ms 63 ms 0.so-7-0-0.XR2.ATL1.ALTER.NET [152.63.86.102] 8 63 ms 63 ms 63 ms 194.ATM7-0.GW9.ATL1.ALTER.NET [152.63.85.109] 9 63 ms 63 ms 64 ms internap-gw.customer.alter.net [63.122.231.198] 10 64 ms 65 ms 63 ms border2.tge-4-1-bbnet2.acs002.pnap.net [64.94.0. 83] 11 64 ms 63 ms 64 ms giglinx-13.border2.acs002.pnap.net [70.42.180.15 8] 12 * * * Request timed out. 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out.
Does anyone know of an FTP client that lets you transfer files directly between one server and another (to avoid downloading/uploading)? Preferably that runs on Linux!
what exactly are the benefits of using such RAMs which cost about double of the normal desktop RAMs? not to mention the extra costs incurred for special motherboards?
