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 need to configure multiple Apache Web Servers on redhat server. I have copied and extracted Apache 2.2 into redhat server and extracted but not able to install because I don't understand setting prefix. Please let me explain about prefix configuration and how to set it. At the same time I would like to know is it possible to setup 4 Apache Web Servers on same machine if possible then how to. Can we set up different versions of Apache HTTP Servers?
The title basically says/asks it all. I believe Mosso initially had no Rackspace affiliation other than using Rackspace's services, and then subsequently became a subsidiary of Rackspace. Now, over the past few days, Mosso has become The Rackspace Cloud.
Given Rackspace's reputation, I have to believe this is good news, but I figured I'd toss it out there for the pros to discuss.
I've thought about taking the plunge to Mosso/Rackspace Cloud but haven't pulled the trigger yet. I wouldn't use anywhere close to the full $100 package at the start but I'd probably grow into it within 6-12 months, as my sites get back online and grow. Thus, I'm kind of facing the old chicken-and-egg conundrum: I don't want to pay $100 for $10 worth of usage, but at the same time, moving sites -- and especially IMAP email accounts -- is such a pain in the rear end, I don't want to keep moving every time my sites/traffic grows.
I wish these guys had a $25 or $50 starter plan from which users could upgrade. I'd be all over that. (I know about their lower-cost Cloud Server packages (or whatever it's called), but I'm not tech-savvy enough for unsupported hosting.)
I have three sites running on three separate servers behind a single router with DDWRT. One of the servers is a Windows 2003 server that I have DNS running on.
Each domain name points to my public static IP address.
My router is set to use the windows 2003 server as the DNS server.
I have port 80 forwarding to the windows 2003 server.
I can access the sharepoint site that is on the 2003 server from outside my network and within it without any problems.
When I try to access one of the other two sites from outside the network, i get a 400 error. When I try to access the same sites from within the network, they work fine.
I am starting a small template based company. How many unique websites in their own unique folder can I host on a single server?
These websites would not get many hits, maybe a few hundread to a few thousand a month per site. My goal is to minimize the number of accounts I will have to open up with a web service provider.
Should I purchase 1 package per site or is there a way to get around this. Each unique site would have its own unique domain.
I'm about to the point where I am ready to host my website. I already have a domain but no hosting plan. In the future I may want to have several different websites each with their own unique domain. I was wondering if I choose a hosting plan for one site, can I use the unused web space for additional domains/websites?
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.
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:
Option A: 1 main server 1 failover dedicated server 1 cloud (amazon/mosso) virtual server to run DNS
or
Option B: 1 main server 1 failover dedicated server (running the DNS)
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've just spent 20-odd minutes on the live chat to someone at SoftLayer to ask if there is any advantage using Cloud Servers over a VPS / Dedicated for a WHM/CPanel system. Unfortunately I didn't receive any answer other than "WHM would work in a Cloud server with certain types of OS only". Strange answer.
I currently rent a dedicated server from HiVelcity, and I'm very unhappy with it (unstable as hell, faulty hardware, etc.)
I am about to launch a new web application running on LAMP (P=PHP, i.e. Symfony)... And I'm expecting some heavy traffic on release day... I already know my current server can't survive being Dugg (been on the homepage several times), and was wondering maybe I should consider the so-called cloud hosting services being offered... Or just go with a new more powerful dedicated server.
What do you guys think would be best for a PHP+MySQL heavy site that is expecting a rush of traffic?
Also, if I choose something like (mt)Grid-Service, or Mosso, do I sacrifice future customizability (e.g. Sphinx, MemCache)? I have to say the ease of use is tempting for a non-linux guy like me, but I don't want to be constrained in the future because of current choices.
we are about to launch the public version of our website, and we are having trouble deciding which type of server to start with. We've reading a lot and contacting all providers to get a quote, but we haven't been able to take a decision. Maybe somebody with more experience can help us...
- most of our users are going to be (for the time being) in Spain. We plan to move to other markets in the future, but not before one year.
- we understand that the server location (or it's IP address) is important in terms of SEO, that's why we've been looking into spanish providers or providers that offer spanish IPs. This SEO thing is the main reason we have ignored Amazon ec2, which, on the paper, seems to be a very good option for websites that expect to increase their traffic rapidly.
- we are going to start with very few users, but we expect to be in >5000 users/day very soon. Hopefully, we will keep a steady growth for the next months, but this is something we can't anticipate for sure.
- our website is based on PHP&MySQL. Each user consumes quite a lot of memory, and queries to the database are very frequent and quite heavy in processing. On the local version (iMac - 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - 2GB RAM), a typical query from a single user takes around 2 seconds. We still have to do some optimization, but there is not much room for it left...
- our budget is 150-200 Euro/Month, but we would be able to increase it in case we find out it is needed in order to have a decent website.
- we are no experts in Linux sys-admin, but we can do the basic stuff, such as installing, configuring Apache, etc.
Therefore, we need 'something' that is powerfull enough to satisfy our users and that is easily&transparently scalable in case we have a sudden increase of users. From our readings on this forum and others, we understand that VPSs are not powerfull enough for us. On the other hand, dedicated servers are not easy to adapt to an increase in the number of users. Finally, in Spain we have found that Arsys is offering what they call 'cloud server', which looks similar to Amazon's ec2. We haven't been able to find any objective review on this Arsys offering, so we don't know how good it is. Anyone has worked with this system?
I'm currently running two classified ad sites with a php script and a mysql database. Both just launched, but I expect them to have decent traffic within 1 year.
Here are the two options I'm currently considering:
1. a fully managed dedicated server such as Wiredtree provides. This will roughly cost me between $250 and $350/month.
2. go with Rackspace Cloud. Take advantage of their $100/month and then just pay as you go as traffic increases.
I noticed some cloud computing service providers, like, amazon, gogrid, etc. are all based on XEN server, is there any provider offers cloud computing on real dedicated server?
another question is, anyone knows the difference between traditional cluster and cloud computing. I did not see big difference based on their own description.
I'm planning on launching a php-based web application within a month or two and am weighing different hosting options. I was almost certain with my plan to use two dedicated servers (one for web, one for db) but I can't help reading about all of these new grid/cloud/utility hosting solutions that promise instant scalability and deployment - which sounds like a blessing. I know there is a lot of garbage and marketing hype so I felt I should ask what the real deal is. Are these services reliable, worth using, really that easy to use, powerful, etc? I was looking at gogrid's demo videos and to instantly launch a few web servers, a db server, load balancer, etc, in 15 minutes for 30% of the cost - I can't ignore it.
I've got a dedicated server through Liquid Web. I can't say enough about how great the reliability and service has been since I switched over to them a number of months ago.
Nevertheless, with the advent of cloud hosting, I'm intrigued by the idea of paying for what I actually use on a server rather than having way more capacity than I need 90% of the day.
I've looked around here and there's a bit of talk about it but it doesn't seem like folks are scrambling into it and it also appears that the offereings are still relatively immature.
I really don't have the time to devote to tweaking, etc or figuring out something really complicated.
I'll stick to my dedicated server if it means tons of extra work or potential downtime or massive frustration but I wanted to get some feedback from the community about whether or not there are some stable cloud hosting options that are emerging that might be worth considering.
I have hired two servers for plesk and I have the mail configured in one server and the website in another one, it all seems to work fine except for a problem.
When the server where the website is tries to send a message through a smtp account it can´t send it, it seems to be looking for the mail server in the same server where the website is instead of look for it in the other server.
I currently have 2 web servers both running the cPanel Control Panel.
Out of the two servers only one is used and the other is just used currently to test scripts. It has come to a stage with the website capacity that I now require both servers to run in con-junction with each other to spread the load.
Questions:
1) There is a file upload service, How would you go about networking both the servers to allow remote removal / uploading of files to different servers. Eg, If user is on server 1 and files are stored on server 2. Also deletion of files etc - The website is programmed mainly in PHP.
2) File updating - The website is constantly being updated and therefore both servers will need the PHP files to be in sync. How would you go about doing this?
Both servers are at the same Data Center location.
We are looking for KVM/IP solution for multiple server. Where we can add the users remotely and give temporary access to the server owners. Once they are done we remove them from access list. So it can be used by someone else.
Anyone know for KVM/IP solution with kvm switch which can solve our purpose of KVM.
I currently have two servers, one is rhel 5 with cpanel, the other is windows 2003 with plesk 8.4
Each server wants you to setup a Hostname... one that is FQDN but not being hosted on that server so I setup a generic dns domain as follows...
SERVERCODNS.COM
Now for the hostname I setup both servers to be use this domain but different prefix... so...
SERVER1.SERVERCODNS.COM SERVER2.SERVERCODNS.COM
Is this ok? Will I have problems?
My cpanel continues sending me emails nightly that my DNS is routing to another ip?
which bring sup my next question... Is is ok to NS1.SERVERCODNS.COM, NS2.SERVERCODNS.COM for say the RHEL server and then DNS1.SERVERCODNS.COM and DNS2.SERVERCODNS.COM for say the windows? Is this going to cause problems?
Whats the difference or proper procedure for setting up DNS with my registrar (*ENOM) vs in the control panels they have Nameserver tools?
Has anyway come up with a way to have several servers connected to one external CD-ROM on a USB Hub/network? This could allow a few external CD-DRIVES to handle a whole rack and the possibility of setting the bios via KVM/IP on a server to boot from CD, then it would boot from the CD tied in on the USB "network". Maybe using a USB hub? Or would this cause possible security issues having multiple servers tied in via USB ports?
I would love to have the ability to have maybe 3 or 4 CD-ROMs tied into multiple servers for OS installs remotely without having to actually go into the DC for this. You could put the CD-ROMs on your APC reboot and just turn on the one you need and set the bios to boot from CD (ie: one drive could have CentOS, one could have Windows, etc) I'd be interested in some ways people have done this or what they use.
I have a firebox firewall and two servers. I don't one machine to see the other one the network. The servers are for two different clients. However I would like to be able to access a backup folder on Server 2 from Server 1. What is the best setup for this?
I have a firebox firewall and two servers. I don't one machine to see the other one the network. The servers are for two different clients. However I would like to be able to access a backup folder on Server 2 from Server 1. What is the best setup for this?
