my new server spec

[pierrefitch]

I have the top server here is my specs

CPU -2 GIG dual AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246 64 bit
2GB ECC registered RAM
Three 160GB SATA II Drives (3Gb/s) RAID 5
400GB SATA II (3Gb/s) Backup Drive
Redundant Power Supplies
Dual Gigabit nics
2u Supermicro
100Mbit port no capped

[Greenguy]

...and?

[Kinky]

well yours is on top, who has the bottom box???

[Useless]

Originally Posted by kinky

well yours is on top, who has the bottom box???

I would have guessed Pierre to be a bottom. Who'da thunk?


I love gay humor.

[SirMoby]

If you add another 160 drive and use RAID 1/0 then you might have a server that can keep up with what most people have.

Is yours the top server because it's in the top slot of the rack? Don't they have more then 1 rack and if they do then don't other people have the top server as well?

I'm so confused.

[juggernaut]

A little note on servers here. Most of the time you dont need one. Hosting 1 or 2 sites it's just a waste. Servers are needed when you have serious software that needs to run IE cam shit. Or you have so many sites it's cheaper to have them on 1 server. Also on that note the biggest and best server is going to cost you more $$ and most of the time it's a waste. A 1.5 Ghz box that was used two years ago and served up a shit load of sites per day is going to serve the content no differantly with a new box, you MIGHT see 1 or 2 seconds on the page load but not much really. Its the up pipe that matters. I'm going to be shopping for a new server soon and I sure as hell wont be buying the shinny brand new box that in 3 months will be old news anyway. I have a server sitting in my house that I use for file storeage that I can access from anyplace. It's a compaq dual 500 mhz box with 256 mgs of ram. Have no problems pulling stuff down. I would not recommend using it now for sites but shit, I would not be surpised people are buying those up as cheap as they are, load balancing them and getting outstanding performance on their sites and best thing. Little to no downtime.

[Kinky]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I would have guessed Pierre to be a bottom. Who'da thunk?


I love gay humor.

gay humor is happy humor right? I was banking on UW bringing some useful info into this thread

[Useless]

Originally Posted by kinky

gay humor is happy humor right? I was banking on UW bringing some useful info into this thread

No, no, my knowledge on servers is far too limited for me to get into it. With me, if you plug the box in, and it boots successfully - you've got yourself one snazzy server.

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by juggernaut

Servers are needed when you have serious software that needs to run IE cam shit. Or you have so many sites it's cheaper to have them on 1 server. Also on that note the biggest and best server is going to cost you more $$ and most of the time it's a waste. A 1.5 Ghz box that was used two years ago and served up a shit load of sites per day is going to serve the content no differantly with a new box, you MIGHT see 1 or 2 seconds on the page load but not much really. Its the up pipe that matters. I'm going to be shopping for a new server soon and I sure as hell wont be buying the shinny brand new box that in 3 months will be old news anyway. I have a server sitting in my house that I use for file storeage that I can access from anyplace. It's a compaq dual 500 mhz box with 256 mgs of ram. Have no problems pulling stuff down. I would not recommend using it now for sites but shit, I would not be surpised people are buying those up as cheap as they are, load balancing them and getting outstanding performance on their sites and best thing. Little to no downtime.

I respectfully disagree. We've learned the hard way that equipment can only take so much before they roll over and beg for mercy. Scripts, stats, htaccess mods and mail all place a heavy burden on the box, hampering performance and experience for your members. Since they pay the bills, they deserve the very best you can give them.

[juggernaut]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

I respectfully disagree. We've learned the hard way that equipment can only take so much before they roll over and beg for mercy. Scripts, stats, htaccess mods and mail all place a heavy burden on the box, hampering performance and experience for your members. Since they pay the bills, they deserve the very best you can give them.

OK then tell me why my surfing experience is no different then it was 2 or 3 years ago? The internet is not getting slower nor is the speed of any of the boxes. But yet my surfing is the same. When I find a site that loads really slow but yet the page size is really small, I "who is" only to find most of the time they are with a host that tosses 500 virtual on one beefy box and that’s just stupid. 99% of the time the servers resources sit idol. There are some differences between a server and your home computer. Most noticeable is duel processor which, no a days is not uncommon to see in a person’s home box along with raid. But they are in essence the same thing. Your home computer will most likely be running more software then a server would. But the main problem you are going to find is the people who set up the server. They don’t know that you can assign processes to 1 of the processors. That’s why servers come with multiples. You have one processor manage your site performance and another manages your other jobs. This way the site’s processor is not taxed while the other stuff is running. Of course you need beefy ram. I would recommend no less then 1 gig these days and even that’s on the low end. My old box had 3 gigs and ran like an ass whipped horse. If you’re running windows check out your task manager and look over the performance of your computer. The only time I have seen systems spike in memory and processor usage is when there is something wrong with the box or they are running a DB and those should be on a box all by themselves. But for serving up web pages; I agree that systems can only take so much but I bet you were trying to run a boat load of things on one box. Mail should run on 1 box not the system you are hosting your site on. That’s why in my experience it's best to buy 3 or 4 smaller cheaper systems and cluster them. Have each box manage certain things and the cluster only comes into play when the system gets taxed. Web servers are no different then corporate ones you see in a company intranet. But you don’t see companies buying 1 server for their whole environment. What you say is 100% correct and I'm not arguing with you here. I'm just saying buying the biggest newest box is most of the time a waste. You can end up paying $500 per month for the thing and in most cases you can get 1/2 the specs of a new box for around $125 to $150. Which would allow you to get two boxes and still save $$.. Heck you can get 3. The cluster will out perform the $$ box and you will rarely have down time on your site. The company I was with was www.fastservers.net and one nice thing the company has is server auctions. You can bid on servers people are no longer using and in most cases you can get them cheap (no one wants a used box LOL) but my 2nd two servers I had gotten this way and was paying $75 per month for them. They were 2.0 ghz with 1 gig ram and 300 gigs of HD and nice thing was I still got 900 gigs of BW of which the company just recently changed to 1500 gigs on outbound only (for cam sites thats a big deal, 300 hosts pushing streams to the box and it counts on your BW sucks). When I had my box the only thing I had running on it was the website. I left all my domains mail forwarded to my personal email through directnic. I bought 2 other smaller boxes. 1 for my DB and 1 for my stats and ftp remote back up etc. But that's just me I would never buy state of the art for anything..

[Jel]

<please take this in the humorous way it's intended, just saw a 'thang' open...>

Boy, Swedguy is gonna be pissed at you Jugg

</thanks man, and for what it's worth, damn - you are too damn smart for me to keep up with! )

[Cleo]

This thread really needs some pics…



I could find a few to post maybe…

[emmanuelle]

Originally Posted by juggernaut

OK then tell me why my ..

So much for respectfully disagreeing

[juggernaut]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

So much for respectfully disagreeing

Come on now. I was not mean. That was just a simple wake in the morning foggy head comment. I did not intend us to (btw I like this new icon lol) This surly is not worth arguing over .Heres a pic for you guys.
http://www.jollycams.com/clus.gif