I would like to find out from users how they designed and layout their networks when it comes to subnets.
Currently we have 3 subnet's of different sizes which house our network equipment such as Switches, PDU's, Log Servers etc. but also on these same subnet's are servers which we provide web hosting and VPS services. We also have some clients on these subnets with dedicated servers.
I am curious about this network design. Is it acceptable to house our operational equipment such as switches, PDU's etc on these same subnets which has client access servers or should be obtain a small seperate subnet to house this equipment for security and isolation reasons.
I currently have one server a Dual Xeon 5130 2GHZ (woodcrest) 2GB Ram. Running cPanel/WHM
Now I run a website that is VERY PHP & MySQL Intensive and MySQL is ALWAYS the top of the process list, hogging a ton of usage. It's getting to the point where the site is needed a second server and I know there's a few options; but I'm not sure which one would be the best.
They way I see it my two options are getting a 2nd server and setting up the two to do load balancing, or getting a 2nd server and setting one up for just Apache and the Other for MySQL and using the 2nd as a remote SQL server.
If I do the Apache on a seperate server would I need such a powerful server? And if I also would want to upgrade this server along with getting a 2nd server would I be better of upgrading to 4GB of RAM or upgrading the processors?
Out of curiosity more than anything, what's up with NetApp devices? It seems to me that, for the cost of a Network Appliance system, I could build something that was an order of magnitude cheaper, and worked at least as well.
For instance, I'm looking at a 4TB NetApp for $113K. The cost of 4TB of disks (146GB SCSI at 15K RPM) from a 'normal' sources comes to around $7,000, so I'd budget $10K or so for a halfway-decent fileserver.
Why is the NetApp an order of magnitude more? I just wonder exactly how it's different, and who values those differences so much? (And apologies if I come across as critical of the NetApp: I'm curious, not critical.)
I'm looking for a solution that I can place a firewall between 2 vlans on a BigIron router with L3 enabled.
For this moment there is one big vlan2 with a ip-route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 123.123.123.123 and a router-interface ve2 with the IP of the router, the address I use as gateway on the machines behind it.
The WAN port has the IP address to communicate with to the GW of the carrier-router (123.123.123.122)
Because I want to let the BigIron the routing I was thinking of 2 vlans, one for the lan-vlan and one for the wan-vlan, but this will be a problem because I only have one IP-block what I can use.
So the sitiuation must be as follow on the BigIron:
WAN => vlan2 => firewall => vlan3(lan)
Because of the fact that the firewall will be transparent, this should be no problem to place it between the vlans. The actual problem is how to manage this. In simple words, I should be able to replace the firewall with a cross-cable and it should still work.
Cisco for an example has a SVI solution for this, but I can't find such thing for a Foundry router.
the datacenter where are located my server have a Cisco 3560G 48 port, seem that we have a problem when we add on a port as secondary 5 subnet, it hangup and not all the ips work, the datacenter tech say that can be a bug and 3560G dont support more that 4 subnet as seconday per port is this true? when we have remove the 5th subnet all the ips work fine.
i looking for the servers (powerfull and cheap) i take this post in vps forum 2 day's ago but i understand that it is better for me to take the post in dedicated forum my friend's : 1-vpn server(with many ip)-->with high transfer + good performance(for start)
2-server for starting image hosting (with high or unlimited transfer + 100mbps )+atleast 50_60gb h.d.d
a good deal of the price in buying servers frequently comes from a nice motherboard, chassis, etc. having to purchase those items twice is just taking away from other components you could be adding to one server-- more ram, more/faster cpu's, etc. not to mention the wasted overhead in just running the operating system twice.
considering all of those factors, wouldn't it be logical to build a nicer single server rather than two "okay" servers?
the only real advantages I see are
1) potentially httpd could be reachable when mysql isn't... but for something like vb, that's almost a moot point
2) at some point you're going to hit a point where buying a nicer CPU isn't really worth the money; spending twice the money for a 10% performance increase, etc. but it seems like multiple cpu's could still get around that.
I just tried westhost. Very nice folks, good reviews, worth a shot. I signed up for a regular hosting account that allows multiple domains. That didn't work for email. An email user has access to email under that users name for all domains attached to the account. so you can't have info@abc.com, info@def.com, etc. One info@ per account. I did find a hack for it, but it wouldn't work with web mail.
So now I need to find a host that separates mail by domain WITH webmail.
This is getting so tiresome. I have a VPS with "the planet", but so many things just don't work out of the box. I've been fighting with them about PHP not sending mail for months. DNS problems everytime I setup a new domain. There has to be an easier way!
15 domains, everything needs to work. I don't want to manage anything. No resellers. The company I host with will own the data center.
i have a hosting account which hosts a couple of my sites. Now i have contracted a new site project to a programmer.
I want to give him access to the control panel so that he can manage the site completely(setup database, mail etc) without letting him on any of the info on my other two sites. For my current hosting account it means providing him with my hosting account administrative login, that means he has access to other sites too.
The other option is providing him only a ftp account to upload files only to the particular directory for that project. But the problem with this is that then he cannot setup a database etc. on his own, he needs to provide me sql script which i then use to create the database from the control panel.
Can a reseller hosting account solve my problem..... seperate control panel (administrate all things like databse, mail, password protecting files) for each site?
Any other suggestions, this is the first time i bought hosting.
Any reading material(books or online) to get familiar with each aspect of running and managing a website(mailservers, security, dns for site, backups etc. etc.)?
This is the scenario, domain.com are setup on server1, however server2 also has the same profile of domain.com as we use ns3 and ns4 using domain.com. This works fine with the nameserver setup on server2.
However I encounter problems as the emails from server2 won't reach server1 as there are duplicate profile on server2.
My question is how do I setup the DNS in cpanel/whm from server2 so the emails from server2 will reach server1?
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?
im currently planning to launch a number of sites that may or may not take off. Basically my question is that most people tell me to seperate the web server and db server, and i believe this is because of interfering IO between the two, and the cpu not being able to alocate between both of them effectively. How effective do you think a Dual Xeon box would be to run apache,squid,php, and mysql. I figured my original plan was 2 servers (each xeons for the db with a raid1+0), but going a dual xeon seems like a decent choice since we would only need to pay for 1U at a colo with opportunity to move the db off of it later when we need to and replicate the webserver when needed. Let me know if im off my mark here. I didnt post req/sec or anything because this is just a seperate xeon boxes VS dual xeon single box.
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.
Okay, I have been trying to get a VPN network setup here between our DC and our office for weeks now and have not been sucessful.
Here is our goals:
-use 10.x.x.x/255.0.0.0 as a local backend network at our DC -be able to assign a 10.x.x.x address at the office to all workstations and be able to access any of the local machines at the DC -we have a asterisk server that we use and want to run that on the same network, asterisk box at the DC, phones at the office
We are wanting to impliment this for allot of security procedures and for ease.
But I also want to be able to have this like at my house so I can still be on the VPN. I want to have my house, office and DC always connected and then setup remote ability too to dial in via VPN.
What would be the best way to accomplish.
I have already tried having a few Linksys RV082 and WRV54G but the remote and local networks must be different networks, so this will not work here.
Does anybody know how can I determine which of the IPs within the network are used or not. I know that this can be archived by pinging each of the ips but there are 256 (192.168.1.0 - 192.168.1.255). I am using CentOS 5.
I bought another dedicated server yesterday and it was bought online same day. It was working fine yesterday during a few site transfers but now it would appear that I am losing network packets.
I have done a traceroute and ping tests and attached are the results. Please can anyone help. I think the problem is to do with NTT's network rather than server problems but please could someone else ping from their location to confirm this.
I have some VPS with Knownhost and i use it for hosting purposes.
First, I'm not from USA.
Here in my country we have several ISP but one of them ( i guess the biggest one ) is having problems with their link that connects to another countries ( including USA ).
Many of my customers that uses this ISP complains about their site being down and also slow download speeds ( 10kb/s when they usually download at 200kb/s ). When they run a traceroute i see that the problem is related to the ISP.
I have already contacted the ISP but they doesn't seen to "care" about their clients and i guess they won't solve this in a near future.
My question is if there is a way to solve this problem on my own?
I was thinking about getting a link with another ISP ( the one that really works ) with static IP and route this to Knownhost VPS. I know that this isn't a cheap solution but is it possible?
