im looking to add failover protection at my main server, in order that if it goes offline, all the traffic can be in a automatic way redirect to a failover / backup server.
For the failover server i was looking to buy a low-cost dedicated server located in other datacenter and have my dns be run at this failover server, but now i have been looking at Cloud Hosting, like Amazon or Mosso CloudServers and as it seems a very stable network, im thinking if it will be best to have setup/running my DNS at a Cloud Host...
So what do you think it would be best:
1 main server
1 failover dedicated server
1 cloud (amazon/mosso) virtual server to run DNS
1 main server
1 failover dedicated server (running the DNS)
We want to provide failover service at our server using dnsmadeeasy service.
So we have already buy the "failover server" (running linux/plesk), and now we are looking to find the most adequate / best way in order to keep the 2 servers sincronized, in order that if "main server" goes down, all the traffic can be redirect to the "backup server" using dnsmadeeasy.
on scripts/software to keep 2 linux servers sincronized in a failover setup?
I'm in the process of installing PPA on infrastructure running Parallels Cloud Server. Each container has 2 interfaces, one public facing and a private interface for inter-server communication.
No problems installing PPA 11.5 (specifying IP's on commandline) or adding service nodes however, the firewall rules the documentation speaks of are nowhere to be seen? i.e.:
Important: After the installation, PPA creates the special firewall chain PPA-SN-Rules-INPUT used for communication with service nodes. Do not change it, otherwise, you will not be able to add service nodes to PPA.Click to expand...
Has this been dropped from PPA 11.5 ? (I recall seeing the firewall settings in 11.1) There is also no sign of the ppa.firewall tool that is also mentioned.
The only rule I see inserted is for Postgres on the management node, and 2 for pleskd on all of the nodes (open to world!).
I am now with Rackspace's new cloud servers. I understand that they are still under a "beta testing" but I decided to give it a go.
Over all I like it. There are however some annoying parts which I will list first.
1. DNS manager issues... I have many DNS records for my domain and it seems that the DNS manager isn't so forgiving. It gives you the ability (or you think so) to delete an individual record however I have never been able to do that. It would always return with an error which is quite annoying. So I moved my DNS servers to another location and have been happy since.
2. Chat support is too much like dell tech support. The first person you get doesn't really know what he is talking about (I have been talking with them a few times about the above mentioned DNS issues and they confirmed multiple bugs within the system but this was at level 2 support and it was quite annoying having to explain the problem to everyone that I spoke too) What I ended up doing is going with Slicehosts chat room where I always found a very helpful hand (they are the same company so it's not stealing). They helped me with many of my issues.
3. The documents/wiki is very hard to find. If I didn't get a link to it from a tech support guy then I wouldn't of known it was there. All it is, is a wiki formatted silcehosts article repo. But it is quite helpful. My tip is to make it more visible.
Overall I am happy with the speed and stability of the server. So thanks Slicehost/Rackspace for your service.
Our website is based around a customer based chat system. Customers are only on the system during a particular day and time range. So for parts of the week the server gets almost no traffic. When then time for a chat comes up we get hundreds of people on the site all doing page requests every few seconds.
So as you might imagine we are bringing the server to it's knees with heavy CPU and memory loads. Plus bandwidth usage is really high. We are currently on the biggest box that Rackspace has to offer. The site runs ok on it during these times. It's a little slow but not unbearable.
But we have not hit our max customer base. In fact if all goes well we will double our customer base next month. So I know when we do we will bring that box down totally.
I was thinking about possibly trying a cloud/cluster based approach but after some research on this site I have found that is probably not the best option.
So I am looking for advice on what to do? Is there a better host? Different technology?
Servers are not my thing really so I could really use some help.
No we can't change the way customers access the site or when they access. There is nothing that can be done in that regard so don't suggest it.
I have been very interested in Mosso for quite some time, though Cloud Sites didn't seem quite right for what I needed with the compute cycles they had. However, their fairly new Cloud Sites looks very interesting, and their sales people at least will have me believe load balancing with several server instances will be superior to my current dedicated server.
Right now I have a server with Liquid Web that costs me $424/mo and 4x Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz with 4GB of RAM. The average load on the server is anywhere from 30% at low times to 70-80% at peak times and memory usage is usually 20-50%. On average there are about 1000 mysql queries per second as the site is very ajax-intensive (hence Cloud Sites being way too expensive).
I don't really know the difference and technical side of all of this, I just program and do the business side of things, but I really like what Mosso has and am wondering if I would get a performance boost going with their Cloud Servers (Going with something like 8 server instances at 512mb RAM each @ only around $200/mo including bandwidth). Also, would I want to load balance all 8, or do something like 4 running the mysql and the other 4 serving the actual site?
I'm planning host multiple game servers on a single machine. I'm going to configure my own machine for this purpose. I'm uncertain on how powerful should I build my machine.
I'm going to host resource demanding games like Battlefield 2 and Armed Assault. Both of the mentioned games has a dedicated server application that requires roughly 2ghz of CPU power and 1GB to 2GB of RAM (depending on connected users) to run on.
Base on the above requirements, I'm going to put together a machine with 2 dual core Opteron or Xeon running at 2ghz and 8GB of RAM. The machine is going run 4 virtual servers with the game server application running on them. My configuration uses basic division to calculated the required CPU and RAM on my custom configured machine. Is this a practical approach?
Has anyone tried anything similar with xen? I'm worry about any performance impact that might happen due to overhead or shared cpu & ram cycle latency as game server demands real time performance.
I'm though about doing this because it's cheaper to rent a 1U rack space running 4 game servers than renting 4Us for the same purpose. Care to share experience or thoughts on this subject?
Over ethernet, maybe using iSCSI? Couldn't one machine have all the other machines mounted on it as another device via iSCSI and then add them to its local zpool? Is there a better way of doing this, where one machine isn't such a bottle neck, assuming that this can be done at all? I hope this makes sense..
I want to add a DNS Failover automated service at my server, in order that when it goes down, the DNS Failover enters in action and it will redirect all the traffic to a second backup/failover server (hosted at a different location).
So in order to do this i have been looking around and i have found dnsmadeeasy, and i found their offer interesting.
But i still have some question and doubts on how a dns failover service works. So maybe someone can expalin it to me.
My question and doubts:
1 - If i use for example the DNS failover from dnsmadeeasy, i would have to buy 2 servers where one is the principal server and the other is a backup/failover server, so when my main server goes down, the dnsmadeeasy will detect in a automatic way, and redirect all the traffic to my backp/failover server. After my principal server goes back online, dnsmadeeasy will automatic redirect all the traffic to the principal server.
Im i correct? Or i understound wrong how this works?
2 - I use my own Nameservers and i want to continue to use my own nameservers. So if i use dnsmadeeasy services, i will be able to continue to use my nameservers as ns1/ns2 and then i will add the dnsmadeeasy ns3/ns4...as the following example: ns1.mynameservers.com ns2.mynameservers.com ns3.dnsmadeeasy.com ns4.dnsmadeeasy.com ns5.dnsmadeeasy.com ns6.dnsmadeeasy.com
In making my plans for my web hosting business I plan to start, I've thought about a failover but wanted to know the best way to set it up.
I would ideally like to start with something like getting a small shared hosting solution (not reseller, just shared) at a reliable hosting company. On this hosting plan, I will host a simple 1 page site that says my company is having technical difficulties, reminds people that data is safe, and provides any contact information accessable (like e-mail/phone/etc...).
I already have DNS setup offsite.
I would like that if my server(s) go down for any reason, whatsoever, that DNS automatically starts serving the temp site.
so if my server suddenly goes down, [url]or [url]suddenly goes to the offsite shared hosting plan.
This would not provide customer site redundancy. This would only ensure that if anything happens to my service, customers have a page available that explains what is happening and has information to contact us to get more details.
We have 2 Cisco PIX 515's in a failover configuration (7.1 series IOS). We have available both a serial failover cable and adequate switch capacity to allow using either the serial or LAN-based approach. We have no current plans to locate the firewalls physically apart.
We have plenty of info on how to configure either, but no recommendation on which is the better choice.
I have a reseller account with a company that often has spontaneous DNS errors, and this, as you know looses us money. I also have a dedicated server running a panel exclusively via IIS. Is there a way I can set up my dedicated (Windows) box and my reseller account in a mirror way, so if one of them fails, the other will take over.
There are no file changes often, more database then anything. Is this possible? Main necessities are:
(Or, if a shared hosting company can accommodate this somehow and is relatively inexpensive.
Basically have 2 hosting accounts at different providers...each set-up for the same domain name...and then somehow wtih DNS make it so if host #1 goes down traffic goes to host #2 (which would basically be a splash screen explaining that host #1 is down and will be back soon).
DNS isn't my strong point, but I do know you can do this with MX records...so if the first server fails it tries the next until it gets a working one or reaches the end of the list. I'd just like to do it is A records.
It wouldn't be as simple as setting the nameservers like this would it?
Assume, a DNS failover service would change the DNS from server 1 to server 2 when the first one is offline. This will be changed quite fast, however isn't it true that some visitors still experience a downtime of a couple of hours (saying that the main server will be offline for 6 hours) as their ISP might not update DNS that frequently?
So basically, what is the added value of a failover service?
What happens if your primary nameserver goes down? Meaning that it goes completely off the net, not even denying dns requests but completely ignoring them.
I'd guess that resolvers would query the secondary NS after a specified timeout, but what is that timeout set to? Does it differ from ISP to ISP? How much of a slowdown are we looking at for end users?
I'm working for a client who has an e-commerce site currently hosted on a shared hosting solution.
He is now looking for 100% uptime (as near as), so I have suggested that we get 2 VPS and use DNS monitoring to switch servers as required (from DNSmadeEasy).
This is all fine, and the websites files/images do not change often, so I can use rsync every so often to sync these. Not a problem.
What does change frequently is the mySQL db for the site.
I've been looking at MySQL replication, but this seems to be no good. If one server goes down, then the other one takes over, they don't automatically sync themselves after they come back up. It seems MySQL cluster is best, but this needs 3 servers and they all need to be on the same LAN.
I've read you can set MySQL replication to MASTER-MASTER so that it acts like a cluster, and resyncs itself as required.
Well my problem is, we have 2(ABC and XYZ company) internet connection and sometimes, the ABC connection is not active and we're disconnected for about 2-4 minutes interval to get the XYZ internet connection online.
My question is - Is there a software that will automatically set the XTZ internet connection to active? Something like if the ABC connection is down, the XYZ will supply internet connection right away.
I 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.