Technical thread for Server Discussion (merged)
- Thread starter Piratecat
- Start date
I'm actually wondering why you guys are looking to buy a brand new server at this point and continue the co-hosting option at cyberstreet. Last time the boards crashed, more than a couple of people started asking why EnWorld is still using the co-hosting option when renting server space for a dedicated provider (I'm probably not using all the right terms for all this, sorry. I'm not in the business) provides so many benefits: 24 hour on site tech support for when things break down, automatic upgrades to the server, better bandwidth at peak times like EnWorld really needs, etc. At the time, the answer given was that it was a lot cheaper to do the co-host option when you already own the server, since the rent is cheaper. If that's true, though, wouldn't this be the ideal time to switch over? With all respect to the current team, it seems to me the current setup has lead to a fairly significant amount of downtime in the past, and going this route will just lead to the same problems again in the future.
Psionicist
Explorer
Piratecat said:
http://psionicist.online.fr/iometer_web.gif
I am not saying SCSI-drives will give you (generally) 100% better performance than with SATA-drives. But I promise you the gain is a lot more than 7x vs 8x.
The reason you need a good storage subsystem in a web server is to minimize the impact of the worst possible thing that can happen, namely disk-swapping. The less RAM you have, the more you need SCSI-drives because the more the computer have to read from disk. In a situation where you constantly read from disk, you will get twice the performance out of SCSI-drives (as the diagram above implies). However, the more RAM you add, the less the system has to read from disk.
I recall Michael mentioned the database is 2 gigs or so, so I recommend you get 4 GB of RAM, whether you use SATA, IDE or SCSI-drives it will give you better performance.
tarchon: Hmm?
Krieg
First Post
WD is claiming a 1.2M MTBF for their Raptor line of SATA drives which they are marketing as a more afforadable alternative to SCSI in lower end servers. Keep in mind that SATA is a much younger technology than SCSI and likely still has some growing pains ahead of it.
FWIW if you are dead set on going the SATA route with the new box, Raptors are really the only viable option.
This is probably a moot point to some extent as the donated server is probably going to force them to go the SCSI route on one box at least.
FWIW if you are dead set on going the SATA route with the new box, Raptors are really the only viable option.
This is probably a moot point to some extent as the donated server is probably going to force them to go the SCSI route on one box at least.
Last edited:
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Forgive me if I've missed this elsewhere. If we go to two servers, how does that affect our hosting costs? Will that double the annual cost? Given the hole we got ourselves into last year, I'd hate to see us double the cash burn rate if that's what two servers means.
Just curious -- I want to make sure EN World survives for a long time to come, even if it is a little slower (vs lightning fast but needin annual "Save EN World" fund drives to function).
Just curious -- I want to make sure EN World survives for a long time to come, even if it is a little slower (vs lightning fast but needin annual "Save EN World" fund drives to function).
Henry
Autoexreginated
Deset Gled said:
Deset Gled, some of the reasoning is covered in our Server Donation FAQ, but beyond that, Cyberstreet's owners have provided us a lot of services in the past that hosting companies can't or won't give us, and have in several cases gone past the call of duty and into "friendship" territory, including in the leaner times of about one and two years ago when funding for the site was MUCH tighter. I can't speak for Russ, but I can imagine that issues greater than competitve price-comparison would have to arise for him to consider going back to a hosting option.
