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.)

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

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.

Web 2.0 stuffffffff :pimp

Ohhhhhhhhh. I got ya :winkwink:

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...

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.

very nice specs!

not bad....

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

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.

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.

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 :2 cents: , but I run a couple dozen server like those...

his main sites probably

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

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!

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!

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!

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