2 server vs 5 servers (same bandwidth) - GoFuckYourself.com

fris · 04-07-2007, 01:43 PM

i have my 1 main server, which does dns, mysql, mail. has 2000 gigs transfer a month

then i have 4 servers 2000 gigs transfer each. better to have that 8000 gigs on one server? or spread them across?

only ftp/ssh/web is being run on those.

thoughts?

FuqALot · 04-07-2007, 02:01 PM

In spirit of Easter, it is better to ... ?

But.. 1 server would be better for your wallet probably..

p1mpdogg · 04-07-2007, 02:09 PM

anyone hear of load balancing?

nestle · 04-07-2007, 02:41 PM

(This is assuming all your servers are housed in the same datacenter.)

Hit up your DC and ask them if they can aggregate the bandwidth usage for all of your servers for billing purposes.

Some might say no because they have no idea what they are doing.
Some might require you to have all servers on one switch for billing/usage tracking.
Some might say sure because they love their customers.

Webby · 04-07-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fris

i have my 1 main server, which does dns, mysql, mail. has 2000 gigs transfer a month

then i have 4 servers 2000 gigs transfer each. better to have that 8000 gigs on one server? or spread them across?

only ftp/ssh/web is being run on those.

thoughts?

Just gutsy feeling Fris, mainly because I don't trust hosts (and also for network related reasons if you are doing SEO stuff), - I'd be inclined to have that insurance policy and spread the risk

PowerCum · 04-07-2007, 03:15 PM

If you know how to setup clustered services and load balancing + failover .. 4 servers = no downtime unless all 4 servers go down.

With less servers you have ease of use.

Just decide what is more important for your business... ease of use or high availability. In some cases ease of use compensates alot and in other cases it's the other way.

eme222 · 04-09-2007, 12:23 PM

Neustar Ultra Services can run either geographic load balancing or percentage based load balancing-let me know if you want some more information...

Emerson
icq 428-946-566
tel 703-547-6054

eme222 · 04-09-2007, 12:23 PM

Neustar Ultra Services can run either geographic load balancing or percentage based load balancing-let me know if you want some more information...

Emerson
icq 428-946-566
tel 703-547-6054

darling2 · 04-09-2007, 12:45 PM

It also matters what kind of stuff you are using.

If for the same bandwidth you are just serving free hosted galleries on all the servers then a small box could serve up all that. If you have a lot of mysql intensive scripts then you need to spread this across multiple servers

TondaB · 04-09-2007, 12:51 PM

I am in no way shape or form a techy person and each case is different. However, with that said, I have noticed several people that have recently moved to us that had way more hardware than what they need. Our techs always evaluate each situation as again, each situation is different.

Bottomline: Work with your host to figure out the best setup for you!

fris · 04-09-2007, 12:55 PM

the other 4 servers are just used for hosting content, i could probably put them all on one server, each server has different content.

liquidmoe · 04-09-2007, 12:58 PM

In most cases the more servers you have the less likely that everything will completely die and fail, but at the same time that also means 4 times the administrative work.

If you have a good managed host that takes care of these issues for you and each server more or less mirrors the others, at least in the core daemons, versions, etc, then 4 servers is a good route.

Honestly it all comes down to you and your host, if you got good managed service you can just have them review your current layout and make any necessary changes, whether that be to consolidate, or distribute.

04-07-2007, 01:43 PM	#1
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	2 server vs 5 servers (same bandwidth) i have my 1 main server, which does dns, mysql, mail. has 2000 gigs transfer a month then i have 4 servers 2000 gigs transfer each. better to have that 8000 gigs on one server? or spread them across? only ftp/ssh/web is being run on those. thoughts?

04-07-2007, 02:09 PM	#3
p1mpdogg Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 16,714	anyone hear of load balancing? __________________ A fast fortune is easy to earn! Just go with a winner!

04-07-2007, 03:15 PM	#6
PowerCum CjOverkill Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Woldwide Posts: 1,328	If you know how to setup clustered services and load balancing + failover .. 4 servers = no downtime unless all 4 servers go down. With less servers you have ease of use. Just decide what is more important for your business... ease of use or high availability. In some cases ease of use compensates alot and in other cases it's the other way. __________________ CjOverkill Traffic Trading Script Free, secure and fast traffic trading script. Get your copy now

04-09-2007, 12:51 PM	#10
TondaB Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: California Posts: 3,162	I am in no way shape or form a techy person and each case is different. However, with that said, I have noticed several people that have recently moved to us that had way more hardware than what they need. Our techs always evaluate each situation as again, each situation is different. Bottomline: Work with your host to figure out the best setup for you! __________________ ICQ: 61462417

04-09-2007, 12:58 PM	#12
liquidmoe Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NY Posts: 4,994	In most cases the more servers you have the less likely that everything will completely die and fail, but at the same time that also means 4 times the administrative work. If you have a good managed host that takes care of these issues for you and each server more or less mirrors the others, at least in the core daemons, versions, etc, then 4 servers is a good route. Honestly it all comes down to you and your host, if you got good managed service you can just have them review your current layout and make any necessary changes, whether that be to consolidate, or distribute. __________________ Take Luck!

04-07-2007, 02:01 PM	#2
FuqALot Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Malibu Posts: 3,817	In spirit of Easter, it is better to ... ? But.. 1 server would be better for your wallet probably..

04-07-2007, 02:41 PM	#4
nestle Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 647	(This is assuming all your servers are housed in the same datacenter.) Hit up your DC and ask them if they can aggregate the bandwidth usage for all of your servers for billing purposes. Some might say no because they have no idea what they are doing. Some might require you to have all servers on one switch for billing/usage tracking. Some might say sure because they love their customers.

04-09-2007, 12:23 PM	#7
eme222 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA Posts: 17	Neustar Ultra Services can run either geographic load balancing or percentage based load balancing-let me know if you want some more information... Emerson icq 428-946-566 tel 703-547-6054

04-09-2007, 12:45 PM	#9
darling2 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 345	It also matters what kind of stuff you are using. If for the same bandwidth you are just serving free hosted galleries on all the servers then a small box could serve up all that. If you have a lot of mysql intensive scripts then you need to spread this across multiple servers

04-09-2007, 12:55 PM	#11
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	the other 4 servers are just used for hosting content, i could probably put them all on one server, each server has different content.