How much faster is a Raptor 74GB 10,000rpm compared to a Seagate 250GB SATA-II 7200rpm? Both are priced the same. I'm comtemplating on which one to use for a database..go for more storage or a faster drive.
View 8 Replies
i bought a new sata drive (seagate 320 gb) yesterday. while i'm trying to install new os to my server, on the setup i take "no disk" error. how can i install freebsd with my sata disc?
View 13 Replies View RelatedFor a server would a Raptor (10K rpm) Do better than same capacity SATA-2drive?
View 14 Replies View RelatedI'm going to use it for a massive SQL database driven site.
Was wondering if SA-SCSI 10K RPM is far away better than Raptor SATA 10K if combined with quad core processor and 8GB RAM?
if anyone has insight or comments about Fusion-io's ioDRIVE versus their ioXtreme drive. If you do, I would appreciate reading your thoughts on this.
The ioDRIVE is their enterprise product while the ioXtreme drive is being marketed to the consumer market. Both seem to be extremely impressive products.
My main question is whether or not an ioXtreme is suitable for web server use. The ioDRIVE is made for server use and is much more expensive, so is not only a bit less attractive because of the cost but also a bit out of my reach, financially, at this point.
So, what do you think about the ioXtreme being used in a web server? Any reason that this might be a bad idea?
Would Intel's X25-E be a better solution than the ioXtreme? The ioXtreme is PCIe based & the X25-E is a SATA drive.
I have a 'complex' situation, if you will. The site I run has free access to a variety of server hardware. Sitting under my desk, I currently have:
1. Dual Xeon 5345 (quad core, 2.33GHz) with 8GB memory, mid-tower
2. Quad Opteron 8xx (dual core, 2.2GHz) with 16GB memory, 3U
3. Dual Xeon 5160 (dual core, 3GHz) with 4GB memory, mid-tower
We also have the appropriate licenses for Windows and MSSQL (which is what we use).
I am currently on a shared host that we'd like to move away from. We would like to have the ability to run both a production and a development environment. We'd also like to be able to offer web-hosting to a couple of other small sites...
So what I'm wondering is whether it really makes sense to colo. Honestly, it seems like we'll get a lot more bang for our buck versus dedicated. Most dedicated servers that are under 200 could only be described as sad and pathetic. However, they may be enough for what we need....
about the hd,there are two options, the first one is four 7200rpm sata to do raid 10,
the second one is two 10000rpm sata to do raid 1, about the performance, which one will be better?
I'm currently in the process of ordering a new server and would like to throw another $50-$70 at the default SATA II 7k 250 GB to increase performance. The server will host a site similar to WHT (php, mysql, and some forum traffic ).
There are three options I can get for the price:
1. Add another SATA II 7k 250 GB and set up RAID 1
2. Add a 73GB 15k RPM SA-SCSI and put mySQL on it. No RAID.
3. Toss out the SATA II 7k and take two SATA 10k 150 GB instead. Put mySQL on one of them. No RAID.
Please keep in mind that the question is budget-related (I know I can get more if I spend an extra $200 but that's not what I want ). Which of the above will make me happiest?
Is there a way that I can check if the host provider installed the correct hardware for my server?
I had 3x Seagate 73GB 15k RPM SCSI so I wonder if there is a way to confirm that make sure they gave me the 15k but not 10k?
We have been using primarily Western Digital drives in all of our server (Raid Edition Series "YS) but have had some problems recently with failing drives, or SMART errors on drives that were only a month or two old. I'm beginning to think maybe Seagate is a better choice?
Based on all of the experience out there, which way do most of you lean...WD or Seagate?
So I bought 4 little simple SCSI drives to build up an older dual p3 server... and they worked great.
Later I bought 4 more and was going to build up an identical machine... but I ended up sitting on it for a few months.
Now that I've gone back to it... I've discovered that the more recent 4 drives have a SUN firmware on them... and CentOS doesn't know how to install on them.
ST318404LC
I've managed to download SeaTools Linux CLI and other tools for downloading (uploading) a firmware file to the drives.
However, I can't figure out a way to copy the existing flash on the working drives to a file, or I can't find a firmware update for the drives
I'm about to purchase a 2nd server to use as a database server. I've been quoted for 2 x SATA II 320GB hdd's in RAID 1 (the same of which I currently use on my single server), but searching around it appears SCSI is the norm for db servers. The problem is, my host does not offer these as a standard/upgrade option and they would need to be specially ordered (along with RAID card), which is expensive.
The fastest disks they offer are 150GB SATA 10K Raptors. My question is, would these be sufficient (compared to SCSI) and do they perform noticeably better than the standard SATA II disks?
Quoted database server specs:
Server = 1 x Dual Core Intel Woodcrest 5130
Memory = 4G RAM
Hard Drive 1 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Hard Drive 2 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Raid Config = RAID 1 (3 Ware Hardware RAID)
Bandwidth = 3000G Multi-Homed Bandwidth
IP Address = 4 IPs
OS = Centos 4.6 32 bit
Service Monitoring = Ping Monitoring with Email Notification
Server Management = Self-Managed
Control Panel = None
$239 Monthly
My 150gb Raptor drive in my Q9300 + 8gb ram server got corrupt. When restarting, the tech got a halt error:
Windows failed to load because the kernel debugger DLL is missing, or corrupt.
Status: 0xc00000e9
File: Windowssystem32kdcom.dll
Their tech support is good, but I've lost all my valuable data. I can't say that I'm happy about using Limestonenetworks now. I never suspected that I'd be having a disk failure in the first month.
I am getting into the dedicated server market and have a question...
I would like to get access to an entire Class C so 111.111.111.xxx - is that standard or should I assume someone offering a dedicated server with 1 IP only is giving say 111.111.111.1 ?
What would be the cost of being able to allocate different sites on the same class C?
We just recently were kind of forced to go from a true dedicated server to a VPS type server and my question is a simple one.
When it comes to SQL databases is the VPS powered server just a secure as a dedicated type server?
For a server with Xeon 3060 + 2 Gigs of RAM, which setup result would you choose to run at?
This is the normal load. At peak times, they would be more like:
Server Load: 0.07 / Memory Used 50%
Server Load: 0.40 / Memory Used 30%
Would a slightly higher CPU load be a better choice than having 50% of RAM used? We can choose either scenario based on installing eAccelerator, a PHP cacher.
I visited the colo space (1 cabinet) we obtained through an Equinix reseller. There was some confusion as initially we were going into DC2, but they put us into DC3 as that's where they had the space (they have a lot of cages in both DCs).
In the past, I had visited DC2 and it's clear the facility was purpose-built for Equinix. You can tell just by looking at it from the outside, but also inside.
Driving up to DC3 (on Chillum Place), I was first surprised to notice glass windows on the outside of the building (they have the reinforced walls inside of that I was told).
Apparently, the building was some other company's datacenter or offices, which Equinix then refitted their standard-build datacenter inside the building. They also have different man-traps (like a rotating door) compared to DC2, raised flooring (which is not used I was told), and lower ceilings.
I drove around the DC3 building, and the other half of it appears to be some other company's datacenter (based on the generators on the roof). Any idea who that is?
Is DC3 the same quality as DC2? It didn't quite "feel" like the quailty of DC2, but that's just an impression and not based on any empirical evidence. It's also a bit further out there, while DC2 and its new "siblings" (DC4/5) are all adjacent to each other (on Filigree Court).
With the reseller we are using, most of their bandwidth in DC3 cross-connects to their network equipment in DC2, and that's where they peer. That's another thing that makes me feel like DC3 is quite secondary.
Are my feelings unfounded, or should I push our reseller to find a cabinet for us in DC2?
Does anyone have input on either of these VPS hosts? Their plans are similar and prices are nearly identical, and I'm trying to figure out whether I should just flip a coin, or whether one edges the other out.
View 8 Replies View RelatedI was wondering which location is better for colocation?
Is one better than the other as far as bandwidth, power or accessibility?
I'm in the process of preparing to install CentOS 5 on my server, and was wondering whether most people recommend going with the 64bit version or sticking with 32bit. My server's CPU is 64-bit capable (Xeon 3060 at SoftLayer), and I have previously run CentOS 4.4 64bit on it, though I did have some struggles from time to time getting things to work (following setup guides that tend to assume 32bit more often than not).
I'll be running just a standard setup of PHP 5, MySQL 5, and Apache 2, powering several moderate-traffic sites that run on the Drupal CMS (e.g. about 7000-10000 visitors per day total, though hopefully more in the future of course). I don't plan on running a control panel other than Webmin, though I might get DirectAdmin or similar in the future to make hosting some friends/clients a bit simpler.
Will going with 64bit offer any worthwhile advantage with this setup?
I am having trouble working out which host to choose for a new project.
I usually opt for Webmania or Heart Internet - they are excellent providers but Webmania now applies a bandwidth cap that may be too low and Heart's cheapest package does not provide sub-domains. I can't be sure whether 12GB will be big enough for a site that will contain galleries of high-res images (I have no prior experience with caps and traffic predictions are impossible at this time) and to get sub-domains from Heart means a £90 per year package (too much).
Streamline is one of the few good-value providers that do not cap bandwidth, but I have concerns about the effect that this may have on server speed given that it is bound to attract the kind of sites that are really heavy on bandwidth. This point was mentioned in an article recently.
If I take the last option, will I be hampering the performance of my site?
I'm having a tough time finding a discernible difference between the 2810 and the 2848, beyond the $1k price premium on the 2848. Can anybody speak to the benefits of the 2848 over the 2810?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI have a lot of experience with VPSs and recently have been working with dedicated servers but my partner and I are going to be providing VPSs and my main concern is securing the node the VPSs will be on. Would I secure it like a normal dedicated server?
I'm worried that if I secured it like I would my dedicated servers it would affect the VPS clients hosted on there. Any assistance is appreciated, even if it's just a recommendation for a management company or single user who could assist us.
price wise I could switch server.
Currently:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz
2 core
Ram: 2GB
to:
Harpertown E5405 2.0GHz
4GB
quad core
RAM: 4GB
I'm not sure the quad core runs with 2.0GHZ versus 2.66GHz.
CentOS 32 bit.
all sites currently on the 6700 using mysql, server load in WHM shows ~1 (2).. just full weekly backup pushes it over 4.
Would be nice if somebody could comment.. would be the E5405 with 2.0 GHz faster, worth switching?
Pentium 4 2.8 versus Core2Duo E2180
Both are 1U machines with 1G of memory, 2000G of bandwidth, 160Gb harddrives.
Is there a significant difference in cost between these two servers?
Is there a significant diffence in power consumption between the two?
Is there a signifcant difference in cooling between the two servers?
Is there a signifcant difference if rackspace requirements?
I have seen quite a few users stack all their desktops together in the datacentre racks instead of using rack mounted servers.
Actually between rack mounted servers and desktop servers (with the same motherboard and parts) which will be better in the racks and why?
I usually use APC power strips for 1U applications. I usually mount them in the hot aisle, with the outlets facing out (into the aisle).
But Tripp Lite has a few models that APC lacks (like a 1U 30A 120v with 24 5-15 outlets, or a 1U 208v 30A with both C13s and C19s).
Does anyone use the Tripp Lites, and if so, can the mounting ears be flipped around so that you can mount the outlets facing the aisle, flush with the rails?
Any other comments on relative features/quality between APC and Tripp Lite?
Almost all dedicated server providers offer windows 2003 server free. Any suggestions to choose one way or the other?
Any major limitations either of these cases? I never worked on linux before, have basic experience on unix though.
Please compare reliability, resources (if problems) in terms of cost, extendability, etc.,
Does cPanel support windows?
I am thinking of limestone 8gb Q9300 server (64bit) with their 30% off deal.
For those who run their own DNS servers I am interested in what DNS software your running on BSD or Linux platforms and on average how many DNS queries per second it serves on what hardware specification?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI (and my clients) have a few very small, simple-minded websites...a few php programs for simple forms fetch-and-forward. Is there much PRACTICAL difference between a Windows-based host and a Linux-based host?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI rented a new server. I check WD6400AAKS, it's indeed a SATA drive. However, why is the label says hda and hdc? Isn't it supposed to be sda and sdc?
Is it true DMA is not needed for my SATA?
Is my disk performance to slow? Does the performance suggest it's a IDE disk?
Here is what on my WHM
hda: WDC WD6400AAKS-65A7B0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: WDC WD6400AAKS-65A7B0, ATA DISK drive
hda: max request size: 512KiB
hda: 1250263728 sectors (640135 MB) w/16384KiB Cache, CHS=65535/255/63
hda: cache flushes supported
hdc: max request size: 512KiB
hdc: 1250263728 sectors (640135 MB) w/16384KiB Cache, CHS=65535/255/63
hdc: cache flushes supported
root@abc [~]# hdparm /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
multcount = 16 (on)
IO_support = 1 (32-bit)
unmaskirq = 1 (on)
using_dma = 0 (off)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 0 (off)
readahead = 256 (on)
geometry = 65535/255/63, sectors = 1250263728, start = 0
root@abc [~]# hdparm -Tt /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing cached reads: 12040 MB in 1.99 seconds = 6036.46 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 24 MB in 3.20 seconds = 7.49 MB/sec
