DatingGold

We are starting two new sites and both have MySQL databases.

Would it better to use:

2 servers for each database with replication

OR

4 servers for both databases with replication

I've gotten different opinions and want to see what GFY techies think.

Thanks!

__________________
9 Years of SOLID payouts and conversions!



ADULT DATING - $100 PPS

LIVE CAMS - $214 PPS

WWW.DATINGGOLD.COM

ICQ: 27442303

BradM

I would say 4 with replication. Only because I have seen several companies do it this way as opposed to having dbs on seperate servers.

notjoe

1 server with a scsi raid-5 array
Hotswap drives
Dual power inputs
Make sure the card supports on-the-fly reconstruction of the array
multiple nic cards

set up a couple of web servers using DNS Round robin and you're good to go

fuzebox

Uh...

This doesn't answer his question at all


But yeah, I'd go with the 4 replicating as well, you'll kick yourself later if one site uses a lot more resources than the other site, and hardware is sitting there idle when needed elsewhere.

NetRodent

Depends. What is the read to write ratio for each site? If you're doing relatively few writes you're probably better off with 1 master and 3 slaves. If you're doing lots of writes, go with 2 masters and 2 slaves.

Also, don't overlook the value of http accelerators (reverse caches) on heavily dynamic sites.

__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken

lurking

you shouldn't need more than one dedicated mysql box. fire your programmer, now.

Joetanto

just steal an idea from someone

NetRodent

Depends on the number of queries and the amount of data stored don't you think?

__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken

BradM

Exactly
Or 1 goes haywire and goes down, youll go SHIT I wish I had another backup.

fuzebox

No, he's right, better to get ONE BIG server to do it all.

It'd be more efficient to run web and database on the same server too!

NetRodent

How do you figure one server is better? Replication allows you to tailor each servers parameters to the needs of the client. Some queries run slow and infrequently, others run fast and often, and you've got writes which are a whole different issue. One configuration will probably not work the best for all queries. It also gives you redundancy and allows you to get much more bang for the buck. Do you get more processing power from one $10K server or ten $1k server?

As for web and database on the same server, if you're running a small site it certainly is more efficient. If you're doing any sort of traffic you're best off running them seperate (and probably running seperate webservers for static and dynamic pages). Any savings by running both on the same server are miniscule. Not to mention if you're that concerned with efficiency round robin dns is NOT the way to go.

__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
--H.L. Mencken