So would the load times be noticeably longer if I ran load balancers, and then had my web servers nfs mounted to file servers / san and connecting over the network to database servers? It seems like a lot of network overhead to deal with.
View 2 RepliesI recently found a similar thread on these forums while googling about the subject but it was old so I made a new thread. What I really need is some advice on what I should do. Is separating the registrar and host really a good idea. And who are the best 2 sites for doing so?
on the subject of ownership of the domain. Does HostMonster let you retain ownership? (They're run by the same people as BlueHost)
I am looking at implementing hardware firewall in two different ways.
First, the traditional way. Just get a hardwired asa/pix or ssg/gt.
Second, get a server and 2 subnets and protect all my devices.
What is the pros and cons of one over the other?
I've tried asking on the xen-users mailing list, but haven't received much response. So, i'm asking here.
I'm running Xen 3.1 with CentOS 5 64bit on a Dell 2950 with 2 x 2.33Ghz Quad-Core CPUs. This should/is be a very powerful system. However, when running Xen the performance drop is huge. The strange thing is, on the mailing list others were reporting much lower levels of performance loss. (Just to be clear, I'm using the XenSource compiled kernel, etc.)
With Xen running, my UnixBench results aren't too bad.
Code:
INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 52116444.7 1383.2
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 2612.0 314.3
Execl Throughput 188.3 11429.1 607.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 155443.0 581.7
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 37493.0 348.1
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1475439.0 959.2
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 548465.7 355.0
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 3313637.0 296.4
Process Creation 569.3 34050.6 598.1
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 3566.8 796.2
System Call Overhead 114433.5 2756155.3 240.9
=========
FINAL SCORE 510.9
However, once I boot into Xen, the Dom0 performance drops a lot.
Code:
INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 50864253.7 1350.0
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 2617.9 315.0
Execl Throughput 188.3 2786.5 148.0
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 159749.0 597.9
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 44884.0 416.8
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1191772.0 774.8
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 306121.8 198.2
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1417645.2 126.8
Process Creation 569.3 4699.2 82.5
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 781.6 174.5
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1021813.7 89.3
=========
FINAL SCORE 261.6
Now, here is where it gets weird. The only running DomU which is CentOS 5 PVed, gets a higher score than Dom0.
Code:
INDEX VALUES
TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX
Dhrystone 2 using register variables 376783.7 38015133.3 1008.9
Double-Precision Whetstone 83.1 2023.4 243.5
Execl Throughput 188.3 3877.4 205.9
File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 2672.0 270737.0 1013.2
File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1077.0 78470.0 728.6
File Read 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 15382.0 1227115.0 797.8
Pipe Throughput 111814.6 1383157.5 123.7
Pipe-based Context Switching 15448.6 310378.3 200.9
Process Creation 569.3 7534.8 132.4
Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 44.8 1179.6 263.3
System Call Overhead 114433.5 1056362.3 92.3
=========
FINAL SCORE 308.2
why the performance is so low? Perhaps any tips on boosting performance?
two setup issues:
1) We have 3 web servers each with IIS and ColdFusion. When updating the site which setup is better:
a) upload the changed file to all 3 web servers, keeping them in sync
b) move the source files to our storage server, then change the site root on the web servers to point to a network share in the storage server
Main issue: Will the network latency of fetching the source files be a performance problem?
2) We have a storage server that will serve up some audio/video via http. Which setup is better:
a) expose it to the Internet and serve it directly to the users via its own IIS
b) create a network share and let the 3 web servers serve the files
If you think long and hard about this issue you'll realize there are many cons and pros to each approach. I can't seem to make up my mind.
I'm not into Dns Clustering that much all I know is some articles and threads about how to do it, and the benefits
Anyway I decided to give it a try 1st with minimum fees
so I want to host my Main domain website on a VPS, as it don't need much resources and using it as a Primary Dns Server
and use my current server as a Slave DNS server that is contain most of my client sites
It's logically possible as I see but..
Is there any Disadvantage? if exist what is it?
Do I have to make both on the same DC?
Will it affect my Slave DNS Server Performance, Stability and Load?
What are the pros and cons of setting of a DNS cluster over multiple VPSes?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI just set up a cPanel DNS Cluster today. Followed the guide, and everything didnt according to my plan. As in, setup went fine, setting it up went fine too. But I do not think I understood how this solution works in real... or atleast I had assumed it to work in a different way.
So for my questions...
1) How and where do I edit the DNS Zones. On the local system or the DNS dedicated server?
2) How do I create nameservers for this dedicated DNS server? Not the registrar part, but the A record and NS record part.
3) Small doubt, not a big one. Does the DNS server have to be in stand alone mode or synchronized mode?
I am trying to setup a server cluster for my client and was thinking about load balancer.
Currently he has 4 Servers and 1 VPS.
4 Servers are in the same datacenter while VPS isn't.
Now from my thoughts about the system load, I have decided to setup like this:
VPS being the load balancer
2 Servers being the Apache
1 Server being Storage server
1 Server being MySQL
This will be hosting two forums that has very high concurrent access.
Now the problem is VPS has only 200GB/mo bandwidth while he needs about 800GB total.
My question is is there anyway to load balance the servers without the traffic going
like this:
LoadBalancer-->Apache Servers-->LoadBalancer-->USER
If the traffic goes like that then VPS needs to have about 1600GB bandwidth and will have network bottlenecks.
I would like the traffic to go like the following:
LoadBalancer-->Apache Servers-->USERS
I'm currently using Cpanel on all our web hosting machines (total of 6 machines). Each runs its own DNS but also uses the Cpanel cluster feature to sync between all machines.
This has got to the point where DNS updates will not stay, the machines get very lagged etc etc. Now I have put 2 more machines online to do nothing but DNS.
What is the best way to set this up?
Our server is going down due to several reasons. We decided use load balancing or clustering solution. What are the main difference between load balancing and clustering?
View 5 Replies View RelatedIm going to start to plan to build a new hosting setup within my business and aim to slowly move away from the shared hosting scene and move into clustered (web hosting)
Now im not great with words so i am sorry if any of this doesnt make sence.
Im looking to build a setup using 5+ Dedicated servers, using a cluster config and using something like plesk on top to offer high availability hosting. As i understand it using a clustered setup will provide a much higher chance of keeping 99.9/100% uptime as it eliminates a single point of failure.
But what im un sure on and what ive not learnt about yet is what is needed to make this work, what kind of software is involved and how would the Hard-drive arrangement work. For example
If each server had 5 Hdd's in Raid5 totaling 1TB Space and there was a total of 5 servers, would there still be 1TB space overall of does it work slightly different to that?
I am working on setting up a few servers that run cPanel and the usual software, minus any sort of DNS server. These servers are setup to sync all DNS records over to a cPanel "Dns Only" (ns1.domain.com), which in turn syncs all its records to a backup DNS server (ns2.domain.com).
In other words:
[Domain registrar]
| |
[NS1]--Sync-->[NS2]
|
(Sync to NS1)
|
Cpanel Web Server
Now, say something happens to NS1 and the sever goes completely offline (i.e. power supply dies, CPU goes bad, etc.), which of the following scenarios would actually happen:
1) Because the registrar lists both NS1 and NS2 as NS records, NS1 would time out and the DNS lookup would look to the secondary DNS (NS2) for the record.
2) The registrar would randomly give out NS1 OR NS2 because of round robin, and if NS1 is given to a client as the result of a DNS lookup, the site will appear down, however if the client happens to be referred to NS2, the site would appear online.
3) The site would be down no matter what.
So, if someone with knowledge on the subject wouldn't mind enlightening me as to which of those would actually take place in the event of a failure on NS1, and maybe some suggestions as to keeping the DNS truely "redundant", then I would greatly appreciate it.
And Im aware that there are many 3rd party services that will take care of the DNS records and make them redundant (DYNDNS, DNSMadeEasy, etc) But I would prefer to keep the DNS in our full control.
Is there any alternative to ZendPlatform's session clustering? ZendPlatform seems to be very easy to manage.
View 0 Replies View RelatedI have been searching and searching for a solution. We are currently using one single vps to host some of our clients. We are finding more and more that we need to have some redundancy.
I have looked at using DNS failover using RSYNC/mysql replication etc with two servers, but just dont like the idea.
I have also looked at hosts like imountain etc that use h-sphere. I dont like this setup because services are split onto single machines. For example mail is done on one single server, therefor if that server is down, mail is down.
What I am looking for:
I am trying to stay in a budget of 150/month or less.
I would like to get one of the two options here:
option 1: two vps's or dedi's that technically act as one(a true cluster) then on top of that is OS and control panel and done. This solution doesnt allow for whole datacenter outages, or network issues.
option 2: Two geographically placed vps or dedi's that are somehow either load balanced, or failover.
Ultimately our goal is to have high uptime, but we dont really have much server load.
Basically failover is ok as loads are always low anyway, but if we are paying big $$ it would be nice to have it load balanced.
Please let me know if my expectations are way to high or my price is way too low. I need to find a solution here somehow and if I cant find anything will most likely just go with DNS failover.
I am going to build a clustering system for a customer. It's around 15 servers running apache, mysql and mail. Wondering which switch do you recommend for that? I am using a HP Procurve 2524 for another smaller system, but customers face to slow performance *sometimes*
For the feature, dont need much. Dont need routing feature (Layer3 switch?), just to connect all of them into a clustering system.
I have a 2 cPanel DNSonly cluster setup for all our hosting operations.
However, we are adding a Windows Domain Forest (for Outlook "push-mail") for this the windows server needs to be its own DNS server. We are also planning to host sites on the windows server (no control panel).
Is there any way that I can allow cPanel to use Windows DNS as the new "cluster" and update/delete/add records of DNS to the windows machines?
Same would apply to this question, we are thinking about adding a Directadmin test box, but we want to keep our NS1 and NS2 cluster so they all work with it. Is it possible? What is the feature called if you can't elaborate on it so I can research it?
I'd like to get your recommendations on how I should approach this problem. I posted this in another part of the forum, but I feel that this is a more appropriate place for it.
Problem:
How to handle large amounts of traffic with for a social network website? If a user uploads a photo or video, how does it become accessible on all of the server? If traffic is expected to be about 500,000 visitors a day, how many machines do you think I should use?
Possible Solution:
I've come up with the following possible infrastructure.
One load balancer. The load balancer has 3 PHP/Apache servers behind it. Behind each of the PHP/Apache servers is a (slave) MySQL server, from which data is read. Behind the slave MySQL servers, there is 1 master MySQL server, which handles all of the database writes. The master MySQL and slave MySQL servers are synced up, so data is up to date.
The actual photo and video files are not stored in the database, only the links to them is stored in the database (to keep the database small). The photo and video reside in a central location (like a SAN or NAS), which is accessible by all of the 3 PHP/Apache webservers.
Questions:
1. How many machines do you think will be able to handle photo and video uploads for 500,000 visitors a day?
2. Is having a SAN with Terabytes of RAIDED disk space an available option?
3. If a SAN or NAS is not an option, does anyone have any ideas on how to make sure all of the web servers have access to the same photos and videos? Is rsync a viable solution?
4. Which hosting provider do you think I should go with?
5. Is clustering what I need? What is clustering and how will it address my concerns?
I'd like to get your recommendations on how I should approach this problem.
Problem:
How to handle large amounts of traffic with for a social network website? If a user uploads a photo or video, how does it become accessible on all of the server? If traffic is expected to be about 500,000 visitors a day, how many machines do you think I should use?
Possible Solution:
I've come up with the following possible infrastructure.
One load balancer. The load balancer has 3 PHP/Apache servers behind it. Behind each of the PHP/Apache servers is a (slave) MySQL server, from which data is read. Behind the slave MySQL servers, there is 1 master MySQL server, which handles all of the database writes. The master MySQL and slave MySQL servers are synced up, so data is up to date.
The actual photo and video files are not stored in the database, only the links to them is stored in the database (to keep the database small). The photo and video reside in a central location (like a SAN or NAS), which is accessible by all of the 3 PHP/Apache webservers.
Questions:
1. How many machines do you think will be able to handle photo and video uploads for 500,000 visitors a day?
2. Is having a SAN with Terabytes of RAIDED disk space an available option?
3. If a SAN or NAS is not an option, does anyone have any ideas on how to make sure all of the web servers have access to the same photos and videos? Is rsync a viable solution?
4. Which hosting provider do you think I should go with?
5. Is clustering what I need? What is clustering and how will it address my concerns?
I currently have a server (Xeon 1x5310, 4gb RAM, 4x500gb hdd in Raid 10) with Windows 2003. Now do to a project I'm looking at installing Windows 2008 and upgrading to 2x5310 and 16gb of RAM on my server.
I'm looking to create a virtualized test environment for development of a new web service I'm working on. What I'm looking to develop right now is 2 file servers, 3 web servers, 3 MS SQL database servers and 1 DNS server (would prefer but not sure if hardware can handle it. Virtualization would be ideal as this is very similar to what we believe will we have when we launch the service.
I have a few questions I'm hoping you might be able to answer:
1) With the upgraded hardware specs, should it be able to handle the load if I assign each virtual entity 1 core with 2gb of RAM each?
2) I would like to create each of the multiple servers in a cluster (ie cluster of webservers) as this is how it will be in production. But, I've never worked with clusters before so:
a) where can I learn about clustering windows 2008 servers?
b) is this possible to do in a virtualized environment?
3) How does MS work the licensing? I want to have each server running Windows 2008 and 2-3 of them running SQL Server 2005.
a) Do they charge extra for each virtualized server?
b) Does this mean I have to purchase 3 complete copies of SQL Server or is there a way I can pay a low license fee for use in a non-commercial, non-production environment?
4) Does anyone see any problems with this setup or have any suggestions for me?
* I do have money available to spend on a good solution, so if you have suggestions that cost please let me know. I just thought virtualization would be the way to go as the project will be in development for at least a year with no public access.
** I realize that Hyper-V hasn't been released yet (that I know of) so information on it might be limited
I am using Plesk 9.2 with windows 2008 server and all of the sudden our DNS services goes down every other 2nd and 3rd day and we have to restart the dns services every time to bring it up, it doesnt even show any error message under windows event.
View 11 Replies View RelatedI own virtual server.
In account created by my server i can't create database whit utf8_unicode.
I am in pozition to use Create database wizard but there latin2 is default.
In whm on my (VPS) i find out that in myphpadmin can create database whit utf8_unicode but how can i share this database whit the privet account that i crate form my whm.
I own around 50 domains.
for the Past 5 years I've been using a VPS with cPanel to point an A record to the IP instead of using the other (shared, resseller and other VPS) IPs or public DNS.
I'm looking for a similar service, that can provide:
- my own DNS (or the hability to point my DNS to the IP)
- can add A, PTR, rDNS records
- less than 20$ month for 50 domains
Anyone know a service like that that recommend?
I've purchased a NL Master reseller (about to purchase one in the US) and then a small VPS to see what more I could do, after transferring my site over to the VPS from the NL server I thought I'd come up with the idea with selling master reseller accounts, (both from NL and US master reseller services) the reason I came up with is because the VPS isn't to large to really do anything but seems perfect to keep a database, payment portal, WHMCS, my site, and hopefully all of my client information. What i want to do is somehow connect all 3 together so that when i do create a new client in LxAdmin I can select witch server I want to create it on and what package/permissions and what not, all from the VPS.
Example: LxAdmin -> create client -> fills out form basically similar that to the one in WHM
Resellers/VPS run CentOS Linux
WHM: 11.24.2
cPanel: 11.24.4-R35075
CENTOS 5.2 i686 virtuozzo
So basic question, is all this possible ? this including domains/email/ftp/ect.
know anything about domain.com VPS services and if it worth to try with them or not?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI wanted to know if there is a provider that will host our sites and provide site maintence all in one package(EX: any changes we want to the website they can do it). We are trying to move away from having multiple hosts and resellers from our multiple sites for our hosting and site maintenance. Alot of companies out there just do the hosting and suggest to get a third party to provide the site maintenance. Basically we want the ability to change anything on our website but have someone who knows what they are doing and do it for us and not take forever to implement changes to the website.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI am switching from shared hosting to managed VPS. I have minimal knowledge of UNIX/Apache, pretty good with PHP and programming in general.
So, what I have now is my VPS, with 512mb of ram, CentOS, cpanel and my two sites, not live yet, that is, I haven't changed dns records in the registrar.
I want to try to optimize the box or whatever is the correct name for it and understand the whole thing better. Mainly to learn more, I dot' think I'll be pressed for memory or bandwidth for now. Still, at least knowing things I can optimize for speed of space.
Few things that I assume should allow for some simplification and RAM savings(hopefully) is that:
a) Both sites are hobby sites, not very big load. Few thousand visitors a day. Traffic is around 10gb monthly combined.
b) Both sites are mine, nobody else on that box, so I don't have to worry about customers screwing things up and caging things internally.
Based on that, I don't really need email for the second site domain.
When I run top command I see 2 exim processes running. Is that normal, or is it because I have 2 domains registered there? And if yes can one be disabled?
Same applies to pop3-login and imap-login processes, 2 copies of each. Can I have just one of each, i.e. exim, pop3-login and imap-login?
Next, I selected not to run log analyzer cpanellogd for 21 hours, i.e. it'll run for 3 hours a day. I assume that should be sufficient for the site like mine?
I did read sticky about securing the site and quite a bit about Apache/mysql optimizations.