From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 6 15:55:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AF616A4D0 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:55:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from morpheus.webteckies.org (node123e0.a2000.nl [24.132.35.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7879343D41 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 15:55:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-hardware@webteckies.org) Received: from sarevok.idg.nl (unknown [192.168.1.12]) by morpheus.webteckies.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C16107D0 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:51:32 +0100 (CET) From: Melvyn Sopacua Organization: WebTeckies.org To: FreeBSD-hardware@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:55:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.93 References: <200401062350.26773.freebsd-hardware@webteckies.org> <20040106221118.GB85049@pasternak.w.lub.pl> In-Reply-To: <20040106221118.GB85049@pasternak.w.lub.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_8r0+/tkkpE9uiDB"; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200401070055.40011.freebsd-hardware@webteckies.org> Subject: Re: Recommendation for Dual-CPU systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:55:41 -0000 --Boundary-02=_8r0+/tkkpE9uiDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 06 January 2004 23:11, you wrote: > Melvyn Sopacua [Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:50:22PM +0100]: > > The reason for the dual CPU is that we want to be able to host more per > > machine, to reduce maintenance. We have done some orientation and > > experience with ASUS boards, but the results are very variable. > > I'd rather consider using 1-CPU machines (cheaper, less trouble) with some > load-balancer (scalability). Perhaps. It would mean, that for every site there should be two instances a= nd=20 two DNS entries etc. My worries for the next 2/3 years is not only volume per site, but also mor= e=20 sites. Some sites consists of 20 files max and are totally dynamic, so a=20 restore from backup or even weekly tarball is easily setup on a second=20 machine if one machine fails. If traffic does shoot up fast, then there is= =20 new budget :). The larger sites have more media, like screenshots. We're talking > 2GB of= =20 images and growing for our games site and there are plans for more=20 multimedia/image-heavy sites. Even with rsync, this takes time to sync and = a=20 much more suitable solution is a stripped down apache geared towards servin= g=20 images (keep-alive, mod_headers, mod_expire) and prolly an inbound squid. =46or our main site, I'm already considering load-balancing in a simple=20 round-robin, because it has doubled traffic over the last year and is still= =20 growing, but I'd rather have one copy of a site to worry about. Or maybe I should think about a NAS solution... =2D-=20 Melvyn =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =46reeBSD sarevok.webteckies.org 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #3: Tue De= c 30=20 14:31:47 CET 2003 =20 root@sarevok.idg.nl:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAREVOK_NOAPM_NODEBUG i386 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --Boundary-02=_8r0+/tkkpE9uiDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA/+0r7Ov9JNmfFN5URAoQFAJ4uTVLsT1AKq5ShFDLO5ST2aejulwCffAK4 QBIHzDZQqk1AKrqhAKMLI70= =bC89 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_8r0+/tkkpE9uiDB--