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.
I already have a VPS with Knownhost but since i'm hosting a critical application i really need High Availability.
Could anyone recommend a company that can provide me this?
I rent a VPS with them + pay additional tax and they conf a VPS Cluster.
The application is PHP + Mysql based. Everything is stored on MySQL and the PHP is only changed when there is a upgrade. Also, PHP is compiled with Ioncube ( doesn't know if this matters ).
we are currently planning to implement SAN to our enviroment - VPS hosting.
Al VPS should be placed on the SAN - iSCSI connected to be able live motion etc.
Currently we are fighting with idea of Failover/High avalability. There has been rumors that dual controller SAN from HP/DELL are much more problematic than single controller versions.
We are also thinking about running some opensource like OpenFiler/FreeNAS/OpenSolaris or NexentaStore on supermicro boxes with SATA or single RAID controller.
But in that case - how make the iSCSI target highly available? Mirroring of the data/space is pretty easy with DRBD or ZFS but when one SAN box goes down, there should be no interruption in iSCSI targe service - no IP change etc..
I am having a new mission to achieve and I really need some pro-Windows system to help me with their advices.
I have a server which requires high availability of data and service. Basically the server run a server/client service and all clients makes their operation over this server. The server is a simple Windows 2003 Web Edition server.
My goal is to have one server running (let’s say Tom with IP 192.168.0.1) and one running as stand-by (let’s say Jerry with IP 192.168.0.2) ready to take over if the first server crashes (this would remind pro-Linux some kind of DRBD and Heartbeat server).
So, the the first server run without problem, all transactions are going to be written in the directory “D:/Transactions”. This directory must be saved in real-time to the second server which stands in case of failure...
The first server also run a Windows service, which has to be stopped on the stand-by server and started ONLY if the first server is not working anymore.
I would like also the two servers (Tom and Jerry) to share a virtual IP address on the one which is having the service running, let’s say this IP would be 192.168.0.3.
When the first server goes offline hung or whatever, the second server take over, start the service and does the job of the first - when the first come back online, I re-sync the data from the second to the first and then, I switch it back (or all this fully automated if possible).
NOTE: the service that I need to run is special and is not one of the normal basic Microsoft service, it’s an in-house written service.
My question are :
- What software(s) do I need to do this ?
- Is there anything that I should be aware of ?
- Is there some provider (on both east and west) cost which can provide me help for the hardware part of this project ?
I'm trying to determine what type of hosting setup (and hardware) I'd need for a web-site that expects 50,000 page views daily with peaks around 500,000.
the idea is to have it stable and serving content (almost all of which will be static).
Are there any hosting organizations or hardware configs that people would recommend?
We are trying to develop a design for a cluster of web servers at a single data center which will ensure that the cluster, as a whole, has very, very high availability.
Each of the servers is basically identical. They all serve web pages, and each can act relatively independently of the other.
Our initial thought was to put the servers behind a redundant, hardware-based, load balancing solution. The load balancers would be able to detect if any single webserver went down, and would redirect traffic to the other servers in that case.
An alternative -- less expensive -- solution that has been suggested to us is to use EtherChannel. We're concerned, however, that it might not be as robust an approach as the load balancer solution.
how we can best assure the high availability of our cluster?
Cost is an important consideration for us.
In addition, we'd prefer a solution that allowed for session maintenance. That is, once a user starts interacting with a particular server in our cluster, it would be nice if they could continue interacting with that particular physical server.
As an aside, I'll mention that we intend to implement this approach at two different data centers in different geographic regions, and use round robin DNS to further ensure high availability of the overall set of servers.
Is anyone aware of the current availability of colocation space at Equinix in Ashburn, VA? We are currently trying to obtain some space with them but getting my dedicated sales contact to respond is like pulling teeth! Are they so full (and thus full of themselves) that we will have to operate on THEIR terms (if at all)? At this point we are soliciting quotes from other datacenters of known lesser quality just so we can get this deployment live...
Has anyone been able to find any compatible RAM in 2G DIMMs for the SuperMicro X8SIL motherboard running either Corei7 or X34** LGA1156 processors? And what about reasonably priced 4G modules? I just want to make sure to purchase the right RAM before moving to a setup with this board / processor. Unless the RAM for this is crazy priced, I really don't want to go the Core2 Quad route when for about the same I can go with the newer LGA1156 stuff. But I have seen where people are having issues with RAM compatability and availability.
any recommendations for a website availability monitoring service? That is, I'd like a service that checks my site regularly, say every 5 minutes, and then calls my cellphone /txts-me if it ever goes down.
Googling around turns up a sizable number of places that do this. But, I'd like to make I'm going with somebody who's reasonably good.
I got 5 wordpress and 5 statics website on this server and 100 visitors by 24H00 each day.
Question 1 : Why the memory is so low and the swap so high ? Question 2 : Why i don't find high usage process in top command ? Question 3 How can i resolve this problem ?
I have a site that is eating up my server resources and need to know what the best solution for this is. I'm thinking of getting another server just for mysql but do not know what specs the server should be to handle the current traffic/database load and have the site run smoothly without slowing down to a snail's pace.
An alternative is to get another server just for the videos being served and leave the database and html on the current server. This is where I'm stuck and don't know what route to take with this.
I've attached screenshots of top and bandwidth usage per day. Hopefully with this information you could tell me if I need another server or if there are any things I can do to the current server to help things move faster.
I am running in a High load problem lately. I have one of those cheap 1and1 servers which was running fine until 2 weeks ago. Once I rebooted accidentaly, it did not come back with some unrepairable kernel errors and I had to re-image it.
I chose to reimage the server with CentOS 5, for better support. The new re-image worked fine for some days, at least so I thought and now I am having high loads. The server crashes if not monitored every moment as the load is unpredictable.
Just a restart of the Apache will bring the server back to normality, but I am not sure if it is apache or some other script to be blamed. I have beeing monitoring through apache server-status, but I cannot organize something unusual in the high load moments.
12:00:29 AM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 12:10:01 AM all 9.14 0.00 5.52 44.66 0.00 40.68 12:20:14 AM all 6.83 0.00 3.98 27.88 0.00 61.32 12:30:10 AM all 6.44 0.00 4.20 81.25 0.00 8.11 12:40:09 AM all 5.25 0.00 4.09 81.93 0.00 8.73 12:50:15 AM all 5.11 0.00 3.79 90.74 0.00 0.36 01:00:07 AM all 7.22 0.00 4.52 57.11 0.00 31.15 01:10:13 AM all 6.89 0.00 4.01 55.38 0.00 33.71 01:20:14 AM all 4.37 0.00 3.27 41.88 0.00 50.48 01:30:25 AM all 4.26 0.00 3.29 63.42 0.00 29.03 01:40:06 AM all 27.18 0.00 4.75 58.27 0.00 9.80 01:50:03 AM all 29.64 0.00 6.61 51.50 0.00 12.25 02:00:07 AM all 27.00 0.00 8.48 55.49 0.00 9.03 02:10:10 AM all 19.29 0.00 4.97 73.80 0.00 1.94 02:20:04 AM all 37.85 0.00 6.78 40.70 0.00 14.67 02:30:05 AM all 15.65 0.00 4.80 68.47 0.00 11.08 02:40:08 AM all 9.06 0.00 5.60 37.49 0.00 47.86 02:50:07 AM all 5.36 0.00 3.62 42.29 0.00 48.73 03:00:02 AM all 6.05 0.00 4.08 47.27 0.00 42.60 03:10:02 AM all 4.22 0.00 3.68 38.17 0.00 53.93 03:20:02 AM all 4.06 0.00 3.75 41.37 0.00 50.82 03:30:22 AM all 4.42 0.00 3.93 45.25 0.00 46.41 03:40:11 AM all 4.34 0.00 3.95 39.58 0.00 52.13 03:50:02 AM all 4.67 0.00 4.01 32.53 0.00 58.80 04:00:08 AM all 3.72 0.00 3.87 28.40 0.00 64.02 04:10:02 AM all 13.49 0.00 6.58 20.82 0.00 59.10 04:20:01 AM all 6.70 0.00 4.63 6.06 0.00 82.61 04:30:02 AM all 1.44 0.00 1.21 4.75 0.00 92.59 04:40:01 AM all 12.42 0.00 8.12 7.65 0.00 71.81 04:50:02 AM all 1.43 0.00 1.07 4.02 0.00 93.47 05:00:02 AM all 1.60 0.00 1.40 8.62 0.00 88.38 05:10:10 AM all 3.80 0.00 3.02 17.86 0.00 75.32 05:20:06 AM all 5.10 0.00 4.22 23.34 0.00 67.34 05:30:02 AM all 1.54 0.00 1.40 11.22 0.00 85.85 05:40:05 AM all 1.75 0.00 1.89 13.12 0.00 83.23 05:50:12 AM all 2.15 0.00 2.22 18.92 0.00 76.72 06:00:02 AM all 1.92 0.00 2.01 12.87 0.00 83.20 06:10:02 AM all 2.27 0.00 2.16 11.53 0.00 84.04 06:20:03 AM all 3.56 0.00 3.02 25.26 0.00 68.16 06:30:10 AM all 2.66 0.00 2.05 18.13 0.00 77.16 06:40:02 AM all 2.58 0.00 2.25 22.87 0.00 72.30 06:50:02 AM all 2.68 0.00 1.92 15.77 0.00 79.63 07:00:03 AM all 3.06 0.00 2.48 26.01 0.00 68.46 07:10:03 AM all 3.65 0.00 3.20 36.54 0.00 56.61
07:10:03 AM CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle 07:20:03 AM all 4.40 0.00 3.28 43.86 0.00 48.46 07:30:02 AM all 4.10 0.00 3.17 31.30 0.00 61.43 07:40:06 AM all 7.67 0.00 3.95 50.79 0.00 37.59 07:50:02 AM all 4.72 0.00 3.11 44.30 0.00 47.86 08:00:03 AM all 5.57 0.00 3.72 47.15 0.00 43.56 08:10:07 AM all 10.66 0.00 3.59 71.62 0.00 14.13 08:20:17 AM all 5.67 0.00 3.42 58.81 0.00 32.10 08:30:10 AM all 11.12 0.00 3.49 76.71 0.00 8.67 08:40:03 AM all 7.00 0.00 3.36 47.94 0.00 41.71 Average: all 7.53 0.00 3.76 38.90 0.00 49.81 Some configurations: The reimage partittioning looks like this:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 3 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz stepping : 4 cpu MHz : 2793.324 cache size : 1024 KB
So my server is "unresponsive" for abour 18 hours, burst net didnt answer my tickets and I dont know what to do. Ive been with this setup for almost 5 months with no problems, No changes have been made to hardware or software.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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 ?
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...
