I need some advice about dedicated servers.....
Im looking into buying a dedicated server, more accuratly moving from 2 dedicated servers to one!!!
To give you an idea of what I plan to do with it first:
IIS (about 20 low traffic sites)
Mysql (no more than 30 DB's)
Mssql (only one or 2 large DB's)
Now im thinking that the above could all be handled by one machine, with a half decent processor and quite a bit of RAM? This would reduce the overall monthly cost we currently pay.....
The machine I have in mind:
Quad Core Xeon
4Gb Ram
3 x 146Gb SAS Hard Disks
with Raid 5
500Gb data transfer
1 x network connection
burstable to 100Mbps
Ping Monitoring
100% power SLA
100% Network SLA
Just wondering if people think this machine would be up to the task? Or if its a bad idea to put mysql + mssql on the one machine etc?
Thanks in advance!
greg posted this at 16:53 — 6th May 2008.
He has: 1,581 posts
Joined: Nov 2005
20 websites and 32 databases on one server is 'ok' if the sites get a very low amount of hits a day. Importantly, a low amount of simultanious hits and not all conections are hitting all the DB's at once.
Otherwise you will be back to having to get a second server so apache can handle the connections.
If the websites get very little hits, you might be better having two cheaper servers. You should get two servers that will cost the same as one big one. Then also if required you can balance the sites between them.
So if one or two sites start to get a lot of traffic you can put them on seperate servers, or even just upgrade one server slightly.
One server might be enough. One thing you could do is ask a decent hosting server manager.
(EDITED TO REMOVE A REDUNDANT WEBSITE LINK)
Solommon posted this at 12:48 — 24th March 2008.
They have: 139 posts
Joined: Feb 2007
I think that it would be ok if you put both on your dedicated server. You know server you keep in mind very stable and powetrful one and I more then sure you will get all your web sites and databases worked well.
onthink posted this at 16:29 — 24th March 2008.
They have: 1 posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Yes, both of them are useful for you, You may take both.
Vicerus posted this at 08:42 — 17th April 2008.
They have: 99 posts
Joined: Mar 2008
That is ok to put them together. I think that web hosting provider must give you the same advices.
Solommon posted this at 11:40 — 23rd April 2008.
They have: 139 posts
Joined: Feb 2007
If your budget allow that for you
Vicerus posted this at 11:30 — 5th May 2008.
They have: 99 posts
Joined: Mar 2008
Seems you know what config you need and now the most difficult thing is to find web hosting provider which will be able to provide you such server configuration. I personally recommend you have a look at Ahosting.biz or Serverbeach.com. They are dedicated server providers. They have lots of servers with them and that might be a way to get such config in not expensive fees.
JeevesBond posted this at 00:05 — 7th May 2008.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Not sure about Windows, but Linux could handle 20 small sites all on the same server. It depends so much on how the sites are built (dynamic or static) and how many visitors they get.
Mixing MSSQL and MySQL will work (just make sure they're listening on different ports), no reason why it shouldn't. It does seem a bit daft to be running apps using both though. If the server runs low on RAM, it might be worth switching your apps to just use MySQL (or MSSQL).
a Padded Cell our articles site!
Vicerus posted this at 11:32 — 14th May 2008.
They have: 99 posts
Joined: Mar 2008
Hmm... Some web hosting providers say rackspace.com or hqhost.net do not allow more then 50% CPU usage. I think that you can simple follow their experience and do the same on your servers.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.