Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:51:44 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> To: "James A. Mutter" <jmutter@netwalk.com> Cc: "James A. Mutter" <jm7996@devrycols.edu>, GVB <gvbmail@tns.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: We are a growing ISP, need some advice! Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990512173912.26546O-100000@cygnus.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905121705040.3487-100000@insomnia.local.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 May 1999, James A. Mutter wrote: > :> At 08:51 AM 5/12/99 -0700, GVB wrote: > > :> >I have read up on doing round robin DNS with the Web Servers, but never > :> >really understood how the disks are synched up, does it run on NFS with one > :> >machine serving the content? > :> > > :> >How about scaling the mail servers? Where can I read up on setting up > :> >multiple mail/pop3 servers? What is the best solution to do this. > :> > :> Why? Again, your machines are doing just fine. Save your money for > :> additional phone lines/bandwidth/advertising/etc... You really don't need > :> a HW upgrade at this point. > : > :James, did you work for AOL a few years back? :) > > No, and I resent the implication. sorry, It's just that when you see your machines not performing "like they used to" it IS time to upgrade. > :I don't think he really needs to cluster yet, getting a 3.1-stable box > :up and running with dual PII or Xeon and about 512 or 1 gig or ram > :would probably be much better. > : > :Think about it, you have a 233mhz system, by going dual 400/500mhz > :processor you get about an 4x factor added to your capacity. > > Alfred, do you work for Microsoft now? :) touche :) > I think a dual 400/500 as a mail server is a bit extreme, don't you? > Even as a web server, you should be more concerned with I/O here (and > I don't think dropping a P4000DX66 is going to help) than processing > power. HTTP is cpu intensive. Read up on everything apache "does for you" a lot of the features it offers make me shiver because I know how much CPU is being wasted. Although you it's still a very strong player for performance and you simply can't beat it's configureability. > He said he's using SSL, I doubt it's _all_ SSL _all the time_. Is it > reasonable to believe that every page from every site is being > encrypted? More than likely that's _not_ the case. It's far more > likely, as a matter of fact, that SSL pages make up a very small > percentage of the total hits. I think it's fair to make the same > statement about the FrontPage pages. Out of 800 VHosts, I can't > believe that _all of them_ are using SSI's. > > :You definetly need more ram. You should consider striping disks > :for more performance. > > You're right there, striping disks is a good thing. In this > particular case it could give him the extra throughput that he needs. HTTP is a lot of CPU, especially when delivering dynamic and SSL content. I'm sorry I offended you, at my last job the system was so under-spec'd that it died a horrible flaming death when it was finally put to the test. I'm pretty sensitive about such issues. I maintain that more CPU/RAM is always better than just letting things be. I wasn't being a hardware kiddie and telling the guy to purchase a 36 CPU sun enterprise server. If you have the money it's worth it to upgrade when load is just a blip on your radar. It becomes embarassing and business can be lost when that blip takes down your whole customer base's sites. If the guy doesn't have the finances to purchase this new hardware, he'll probably be ok for a while, on the otherhand if he _does_ have the cash, it'd be foolish not to beef up the systems considering the load he's noticed. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990512173912.26546O-100000>