i have a site which involves heavy cpu use but its in a small private network with 3 other boxes which are pretty much idle, so im wondering is their a way to use the idle cpu time /ram possibly on my main server via the network ?
View 5 RepliesI'm boycotting Intel for their building of a factory on illegally occupied Palestinian land, the village of Iraq al Manshiya.
As such I'm looking for a VPS provider that has AMD servers available in the UK.
I have make an argument for going with Intel chips for some new platforms. These will be used in Xen VPS hosting.
Scanning thru the products of newegg for example, it would seem first that AMD boards (Opterons) are cheaper then Intel's 775 boards. Then the Intel boards also require FB-Dimms which is a bit more expensive then Registered ram.
I know alot of hosters here prefer going with Intel. Is there any other reasons then just following the crowd? I do know Intel chips perform better but does that warrant say 300 more dollars of going with an Intel based solution?
What would be some convincing arguments for going with Intel instead of AMD chips?
I have an account at HostMonster.
Server Load: 12.08 (8 cpus) with RED status
Is it too much?
Any hostmonster users?
Many people have some problems with vmware server on some 64bit operation systems.
If your server's ram is more than 6GB, you have to have a 64bit OS but I have tried to install vmware server on a 64bit server, it seems to be crashing my vmware server every 5 min and I cant use it more until I reset this service.
CPU : Intel Xeon Nehalem 3440 2.53Ghz Quad Core w/ HyperThreading (8 virtual cores)
Ram : 4 GB DDR2
Os : CentOS 64bit
I have had an another server and i have solved this problem whit Debian. but on CentOS I usually have problem, and I cant use vmware server.
Have you any idea how i solve this problem on CentOS 64bit?
Which dedicated host is the fastest at providing servers with the newest CPUs?
Intel just announced a 6 Core CPU that is being released within a few months, so which Dedi host do you think will offer this first?
Are there particular version of mysql or apache that are best suited when you want to utilize a multi-core/multi-cpu system? For example, we are currently using apache 1.3 and am not sure if it has the inherent ability to use multiple cpus to its benefit.
Or would the fact that it spawns child processes take advantage as the processes will be spawned on the different CPUs?
Attacking multicore CPUs
[url]
[url]
"The Register reports that the world of current multi-core central processing units (CPUs) just entered is facing a serious threat. A security researcher at Cambridge disclosed a new class of vulnerabilities that takes advantage of concurrency to bypass security protections such as anti-virus software The attack is based on the assumption that the software that interacts with the kernel can be used without interference. The researcher, Robert Watson, showed that a careful written exploit can attack in the little timeframe when this happens, and literally change the "words" that they are exchanging. Even if some of these dark aspects of concurrency were already known, Watson proved that real attacks can be developed, and showed that developers have to fix their code. Fast..."
Anyone had any experience with setting up an ftp cluster? We have tried to search Google and haven't been successful in such a solution so I came here to ask if anyone else has ever thought about doing it. Or done it and how did you do it? I'm looking in to it for windows. 99% of my servers are windows.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI see more and more hosts popping up (and older hosts switching to) offering what they call clustered load balanced plans. These plans are mostly on the low end price wise (sub $10/month), and the marketing speak tells of zero downtime, intelligent clustered, load balanced, failover, will wash your clothes approaches to keeping websites up 110% of the time.
I guess what I fail to grasp is are these plans really, truly load balanced clustered approaches, or is it more of a case of we have 1 DNS server, 1 mail server, 1 web server, 1 mysql server, and a backup server that in an emergency has rsyncs each hour to "failover" to and screw up your dynamic data?
If the webservers are load balanced, what about accounts that use SQLite db's, or berkeley db's, are these maintained 100% in synch, and if so, how? If one server goes down, and the other picks up the slack, won't the db's be out of synch and data contention will occur? Are sessions including SSL truly handled correctly?
Same for MySQL. Is this true two way replication with fault tolerant switchovers between master and slave to preclude data loss and corruption on hot switch overs when a server fails?
I guess I just see everyone slapping a "clustered" label on things, and speaking of load balancers, etc... all for the cup of coffee a month. But I am highly suspect if these plans are truly load balanced, or is it a band-aid approach to load balancing?
Just the ranting of a an older hosting owner who's just not sure what many companies are truly offering when they speak of clustered, load balanced, more uptime than Viagra type of solutions...
We have been running two dedicated servers for a number of years now and we use Cpanel and DirectAdmin for the control panels. Today we had a big problem with our first server which effectively made the 150 sites on it out of action and it exposed a potential issue to us that if the server died that we'd have a big task restoring all the sites from the backup drive. I've heard that some hosting companies strip data across more than one machine and I presume this is a cluster, and I was wondering if this is the best method and what the most cost effective route would be to do it?
View 0 Replies View RelatedI was wondering if there is any way to connect 40-50 Linux VPSes in a cluster. Most of the cluster solutions out there want you to recompile a custom kernel which cannot be done on a vps. The virtual machines are on different hardware nodes and I don't have access to those since I am renting the VPSes from another company.
View 14 Replies View RelatedWhat is the best way to make sure my website is 100% available all the time.
View 3 Replies View RelatedOn setting up a pair of CPanel DNS only servers, I decided to use 2 Virtual Servers from 2 seperate companies - one Xen and the other was Openvz. Reason behind it was in case something happens to the company or the virtualization technology implemented, I'm not screwed.
Guess what! Next day my Openvz node (I will not name the provider) went south and I'm on one leg right now. I'm kinda pleased with myself for having this laid out from the beginning and DNS is still working fine.
Now I'm thinking of having different OS - one linux and the other freebsd. Am I paranoid and over-the-top?
we are planing to build a 5 system mysql cluster for our website. i have few questions regarding this. As per our provider, we need mod_ndb for apache to connect database cluster. (SQL API). we have 5 system apache cluster.
Mod_ndb configuration, we need to add all table structure in http configuration. Is there any other way to connect database? or any other way to configure mod_ndb without adding table structure inside http configuration.
any other better way to connect database
All my sites that depend on MySQL at iMountain have been down all day. I was in the process of converting some of them to Joomla/Drupal but I'm having second thoughts now.
My question is - shouldn't "clustering" prevent this sort of thing happening? I thought it implied some level of redundancy.
I try to keep on the up and up about hosting and constantly looking for a new host to provide better services, but I saw an article in TheWHIR that got me to wonder if people are making stuff up or is it just "marketing" or real?
Ok, so the article:
[url]
I hope adding a link to the article is ok?
First of all I have NEVER heard of cPanel ever offering clustered technology. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is real? I have really only used HSphere which I know has some cluster abilities and even those hosts don't advertise "clustered" services.
Then I see other so called cPanel wannabe clustered services which they call cPanel clustered failover or something like that which to me is ummm..more fault tolerant hosting than actual cluster hosting.
Basically, am I just not understanding the meaning of "cluster"?
I think cluster has to do with the proper allocation of reasources spread across the network of defined processes, though, I have been wrong in the past...
I have a total DB in size of 800MB... Recently I had to make a few configurations in the management tool and had to do an intialize restart... Not sure what's taking so long, but it's been nearly 8 hours and I have not seen any of my tables that used to be there.
When I do du -sh /var/lib/mysql-cluster, it shows that I have 800M /var/lib/mysql-cluster...
I just need a bit of feedback, I currently have a forum, getting around 20-35k uniques per day.
I am currently on a Intel C2D, 4gb Ram, paying around $185/month.
Would setting up a cluster help me reduce the costs or load?
Cluster = 1 server for httpd, 1 server for mysql, 1 server for images?
I´m running 4 servers on a cpanel - dns - cluster.
- 1 running cpanel (srv01)
- 3 running cpanel-dns-only (cluster01 - cluster03)
My DNS config is:
srv01 - dns1.domain.com
cluster01 - dns2.domain.com
I ´ve setup on srv01:
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
- cluster03 (standalone)
On cluster01:
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
- cluster03 (standalone)
And on cluster02 and cluster03, I did something like that:
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster03 (standalone)
And
- srv01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster01 (synchronize changes)
- cluster02 (standalone)
1. So, is that correct?
2. It seems that when I click on 'syncronize all DNS records on all the servers' only cluster01 and srv01 got all the DNS records. So is it normal?
Yet If I add a domain on cluster02 for example, where I need to add the DNS? cluster02 named.conf or on cluster01/srv01?
Anyone have issues where after setting up cpanel dns cluster via whm, cpanel fails often on the clustered boxes?
View 2 Replies View Relatedwhen cluster server will be avalaible?
and I'm curious about the space and bandwidth of this service
I'm planning to upgrade my servers to a more "enterprise-class" installation and would like to hear your advice for good managed hosting providers for this.
Currently I use RackSpace which are great but pricey (leased servers); in the past we had a colocation with another provider: it was good cost-wise and generally proffesional but alas the provider's infrastructure was not sufficiently resilient to natural disasters and unlikely but occurring infrastructure accidents.
My feeling is to stay with a more managed service rather than try to colocate again: we need someone making sure the hardware stays around 24/7 and makes sure to have the appropriate spare parts and expertise in the hardware they sell us. We can handle the software parts.
I'll probably stay with RackSpace because they can and have already built stuff like the below. But maybe there's another provider out there which fullfills similar needs for customers.
My needs are:
1.5 TB of shared storage (i.e. SAN or NAS; must be reasonably fast (maybe 10MB/s sustained) and 99.99% up); add .5TB per year
4 application servers in various configuration (8-16G of RAM, quad or dual-quad Xeons)
2 database servers (With fast drives in RAID-10 but not much disk; most of our data is not in an SQL server)
Some appropriate load balancing appliance (with at least 99.99% reliability)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Redundancy to a point (i.e. redundant mechnical parts, hot-swap drives)
Usual stuff: managed backup, private network, hardware monitoring with fast hardware exchange
No Linux system administration beyond a sane installation needed
99.99% uptime on the network and infrastructure (i.e. if an UPS blows up or a router goes down this should not affect me; redundant connections to multiple network providers etc. etc). RackSpace has a 100% network uptime guarantee and in the many years we've been with them in one form of another I haven't been disappointed in their competency on that front.
This would be in some US datacenter. Does someone have experience with such a scale installations with other providers (or RackSpace too) ?
(I wrote "SAN or NAS" because I'm not really yet sure if some NFS server or maybe shared storage via SAN and something like RedHat's GFS will be best for my needs; it would be nice if the provider was capable of advicing on things like that).
I have started to move my websites over to my UK Colocation But would like a little guidence on what the best solution would be.
I would like to build up a Server Cluster that will handle all of my sites really and also have redundancy, so If 1 server goes down the other Web/SQL/Whatever server will be used instead.
I have websites ranging from large forums to streaming & download websites.
Should I got for a setup for example:
X Web Servers + X Database Servers
Connected to X Storage (see link below)
Connecting the Web Servers in something like a a round robin config or use a Load Balancer / Other
OR Should I setup multiple:
Web Server + Database Server + Media Server
OR another config?
Below are my current setups
Current UK Setup (Colocation)
Web Server
Quad Core, 8GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 1
Quad Core, 8GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 1 (just ordered)
SQL Server
Quad Core, 4GB Ram, 250gb HDD Raid 10
Storage Server
HP StorageWorks NAS 1200s 1TB (just Ordered)
Link: [url]
Current US Setup (Dedicated Servers)
Web Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 3TB HDD
SQL Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 1TB HDD
Media Server
Quad Core x2, 8GB Ram, 3TB HDD
Dual Core, 4GB Ram, 3TB HDD
Backup Server
Dual Core, 2GB Ram, 1TB HDD
We've come to a crossroad with our site and not sure where to take it from here. It would seem like a cluster option would be the best bet, but wanted to ask the professionals first to see if there were any other way to solve it.
The problem is (as usual) too high load making the servers slow. Actually, only the apache server. We recently seperated mySQL and apache on two servers to help out with the load. The mySQL server load is around 0.25-0.5 throughout the day, but the apache server load is almost always at 6.xx-10.xx.
Both servers has the following stats:
CPU: Intel Core2Quad Q6600-S3 (Quad Core @ 2.4GHz)
RAM: 8GB DDR2
HDD: 750gb SATA2
Average Daily Stats:
Uniques: 60 000
Pages: 1 300 000
Hits: 14 700 000
BW: 95 GB
Concurrent users on vBulletin forums 250-700.
* Shouldn't an apache server with these stats be capable to handle the current visits?
* Could this perhaps be solved if we swapped the sata drive with a scsi/sas?
If we're moving to a cluster solution, we'd be looking at minimum 5 servers.
2x Load balancing servers
1x SQL server
2x Apache servers
Preferably we should have 2 SQL servers for redudancy, but for a site that is hobby based, it would be insane to pay around $1245-1490 a month just to keep it up.
Key stats from httpd.conf
Code:
ServerType standalone
KeepAlive Off
MaxKeepAliveRequests 100
KeepAliveTimeout 1
MinSpareServers 15
MaxSpareServers 20
StartServers 15
MaxClients 275
MaxRequestsPerChild 1000
I have root access if anyone needs more info.
I there any good shared or reseller host that has clustered mysql servers facility?
View 1 Replies View Relatedi am going to use with hsphere preferently i want to use Dell blade server 1955 with exchange and sharepoint, cause the low HD capacity i will like to add and HD array could be NAS or SAN,
View 10 Replies View RelatedThis is clearly the next logical step in hosting. Consider what RAID1 did for hard drive availability. Worried about your disk failing? No problem - throw in a duplicate. From a user/admin perspective the mirrored disks appear as one, highly reliable disk. Every modern OS supports this, even cheap motherboards support it, with a minimal amount of configuration.
The perfect high availability cluster should be completely transparent. Think about it... What if clustered hardware allowed you to manage a single instance of your chosen server OS with no worries about hardware/network/power failure?
The closest you can get to this finding a host that will give you a dual power supply server connected to different power feeds, dual network cards connected to different switches, and hot-swappable mirrored hard drives. This solution still doesn't give you any protection from CPU, memory, or motherboard failure.
I want a solution that is as simple to configure and manage as simple RAID1 mirroring.
put together a high availability cluster for a PHP + MySQL based app to run on a LAN. We're going to use Linux, and cost is a major consern. The app itself doesn't use / need too much resources, as it will only be accessed by 2 / 3 people at a time, so I'm using the following:
2 identical PC's with:
3Ghz PIV CPU
1GB RAM
2x SATAII 160GB HDD space setup as RAID 1
10/100 Mbps LAN NIC's, on a 100MB 8 port switch
Up to now I have been running MySQL-Max 5.0.15 to run a MySQL master-master replication server, which works fine, but the setup involved a lot of manual work, and downloading of the right binaries.
Furthermore I used Linux Heartbeat todo auto switchover between the two servers & RSYNC to sync the application files between the two. This has been working fine untill one of the server's HDD's failed recently corrupting both HDD's
So, I need a better way of doing this, and want to meet the following requirements:
If 1 HDD fails on either server, the server still needs to be able to run without a problem.
Replacing a HDD & rebuilding the RAID array should be easy to manage, preferabbly over the net.
Setting up a cluster should be easy to manage, both for the MySQL DB server & the files that need to be synced between the two machines Re-installing the server should be easy todo as well.
For No.1 I have been thinking of setting up RAID 5 with 4x HDD's - how reliable / safe / redundant is this?
For No. 4 I have been thinking of using something like sysimager to backup the server once setup, but will / can it recreate the RAID array upon restoration? The MySQL DB & PHP files are being backed up to a removable HDD on a daily basis.
The client is 700Km's away, so we can't just drop-in to fix things as often as we like. Thus redundancy is of utter importance. Currently I'm running Suse 9.3, simply due to the fact that it's easy enough to tell the client over the phone howto do things with YaST. Suse 10.1 will be used for the new setup, but I could also use Fedora Core 5, and have also been thinking of using SME server 7.0.
Was thinking about running an email server for some local businesses, so they can out source their IT systems (cheaper).
Now setting up a mail server, say running DirectAdmin is normally fine.
However this is a "mission critical" service to these guys, so I want 9.9999% uptime !
I was thinking of getting a few VPS's around 384MB RAM, 20GB HDD spec in the same DC but on different nodes and setting up a cluster...
And then I thought..... How the hell do I do that..? WHT must know.....
Can anyone recommend a dedicated server provider that will allow us to setup a virtual iron cluster.
View 1 Replies View Related