Im upgrading my servers, tell me what you think! - GoFuckYourself.com

xlogger · 07-13-2006, 06:27 AM

2 Servers Load Balanced for html/php.

1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

1 Servers just for mysql.

1x sql server (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 175 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

1 massive media server.

1x content server with 400mbps bandwith. (Supermicro 1xXeon3.0Ghz 4Gb DDR Ram 2x 74Gb SATA 10krpm drives in hardware raid 0.)

EdgeXXX · 07-13-2006, 06:56 AM

Not bad. What are you going to be hosting with this setup?

bknoob · 07-13-2006, 06:59 AM

raid 0 for content server? Will you have some kind of backup system in place? If a HD goes down you are screwed.

2c

the setup themselves look awesome.

xlogger · 07-13-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdgeXXX

Not bad. What are you going to be hosting with this setup?

Web 2.0 stuffffffff

EdgeXXX · 07-13-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlogger

Web 2.0 stuffffffff

Ohhhhhhhhh. I got ya

teksonline · 07-13-2006, 07:22 AM

I don't think SATA is the right choice for a content drive... they just are not known to last as long. Definately consider getting a raid controller card to link up and not worrying about content drive burning a server, 74 gigs might not seem to be a lot, but try uploading that stuff after a failure.. or even getting to the data center and copying it over or whatever you'd have to do...

liquidmoe · 07-13-2006, 08:47 AM

SATA isnt a good choice for mission critical applications and if you use it you definitely want RAID1 or 5 or something that will give you some data redundancy.

Optimally you should be running SAS or SCSI, and there are other optimizations that need to be taken into account when configuring a multi-server setup, otherwise you will be spending money on hardware but not using it to its full potential.

Kimo · 07-13-2006, 10:22 AM

very nice specs!

woj · 07-13-2006, 10:28 AM

not bad....

QTbucks_Mark · 07-13-2006, 10:43 AM

It all depends on the stuff you run on the servers...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlogger

2 Servers Load Balanced for html/php.
1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

Personally, I wouldn't go with 2x 160GB on a RAID but use diskless nodes. If the content those boxes serve fits into their RAM, you won't have much I/O anyway and could spend the money on a second CPU instead.

Be sure to have your webserver (whatever you use) tuned correctly or you won't even get somewhere close to what each of those servers could do on its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlogger

1 Servers just for mysql.

1x sql server (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 175 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives)

Looks ok. Depending on the size of your databases you might want to add more RAM. Keeping the whole DB cached could improve performance quite a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xlogger

1 massive media server.

1x content server with 400mbps bandwith. (Supermicro 1xXeon3.0Ghz 4Gb DDR Ram 2x 74Gb SATA 10krpm drives in hardware raid 0.)

I wouldn't call 74 GB "massive" - a few TB is massive...

If you want to do 400 mbps and have more and lets say 4-10 GB content on that box, your disks may become the bottleneck. If you actually use those 74 GB for content or plan to add even more, go for a 3x 36GB RAID5 or a 4x 36GB RAID10 instead, hook them up to a decent controller (lots of cache, battery-backed if it's not read-only), use faster disks (15k) and add as much RAM as you can afford if performance still sucks...

Just my

, but I run a couple dozen server like those...

fris · 07-13-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdgeXXX

Not bad. What are you going to be hosting with this setup?

his main sites probably

www.badjojo.com
www.quppy.com
www.ryls.com

Sparks · 07-13-2006, 12:00 PM

I wouldn't be pushing 400Mbps on one server... just me. I'd rather spread it across 2 or more and I would load balance that as well.

Nice setup, though, I like it. I would suggest maybe using SCSI hard drives, though.

Good luck!

Sparks · 07-13-2006, 12:00 PM

I wouldn't be pushing 400Mbps on one server... just me. I'd rather spread it across 2 or more and I would load balance that as well.

Nice setup, though, I like it. I would suggest maybe using SCSI hard drives, though.

Good luck!

Sparks · 07-13-2006, 12:01 PM

I wouldn't be pushing 400Mbps on one server... just me. I'd rather spread it across 2 or more and I would load balance that as well.

Nice setup, though, I like it. I would suggest maybe using SCSI hard drives, though.

Good luck!

Sparks · 07-13-2006, 12:01 PM

Whoa, what happened there? GFY whiggin' out again...

07-13-2006, 06:27 AM	#1
xlogger Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: NY Posts: 9,507	Im upgrading my servers, tell me what you think! 2 Servers Load Balanced for html/php. 1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives) 1x html servers (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 165 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives) 1 Servers just for mysql. 1x sql server (Opteron supermicro server with 1x 175 chip , 2Gb ram , hardware raid, and 2x 160Gb drives) 1 massive media server. 1x content server with 400mbps bandwith. (Supermicro 1xXeon3.0Ghz 4Gb DDR Ram 2x 74Gb SATA 10krpm drives in hardware raid 0.) __________________ ---------- XLOGGER [REFLECTED] [OH]

07-13-2006, 06:56 AM	#2
EdgeXXX Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Secretely plotting a hostile takeover Posts: 5,816	Not bad. What are you going to be hosting with this setup? __________________ . . . . I have a sig

07-13-2006, 08:47 AM	#7
liquidmoe Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NY Posts: 4,994	SATA isnt a good choice for mission critical applications and if you use it you definitely want RAID1 or 5 or something that will give you some data redundancy. Optimally you should be running SAS or SCSI, and there are other optimizations that need to be taken into account when configuring a multi-server setup, otherwise you will be spending money on hardware but not using it to its full potential. __________________ Take Luck!

07-13-2006, 10:22 AM	#8
Kimo ... Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Maryland ICQ:87038677 Posts: 11,542	very nice specs! __________________ ...

07-13-2006, 10:28 AM	#9
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	not bad.... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

07-13-2006, 06:59 AM	#3
bknoob Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,610	raid 0 for content server? Will you have some kind of backup system in place? If a HD goes down you are screwed. 2c the setup themselves look awesome.

07-13-2006, 07:22 AM	#6
teksonline So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: At My Desk Posts: 2,904	I don't think SATA is the right choice for a content drive... they just are not known to last as long. Definately consider getting a raid controller card to link up and not worrying about content drive burning a server, 74 gigs might not seem to be a lot, but try uploading that stuff after a failure.. or even getting to the data center and copying it over or whatever you'd have to do...

07-13-2006, 12:00 PM	#12
Sparks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Southern CA Posts: 2,466	I wouldn't be pushing 400Mbps on one server... just me. I'd rather spread it across 2 or more and I would load balance that as well. Nice setup, though, I like it. I would suggest maybe using SCSI hard drives, though. Good luck!

07-13-2006, 12:01 PM	#14
Sparks Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Southern CA Posts: 2,466	I wouldn't be pushing 400Mbps on one server... just me. I'd rather spread it across 2 or more and I would load balance that as well. Nice setup, though, I like it. I would suggest maybe using SCSI hard drives, though. Good luck!