Recommendation for Dual-CPU systems
freebsd-hardware at webteckies.org
Tue Jan 6 15:55:41 PST 2004
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 and
two DNS entries etc.
My worries for the next 2/3 years is not only volume per site, but also more
sites. Some sites consists of 20 files max and are totally dynamic, so a
restore from backup or even weekly tarball is easily setup on a second
machine if one machine fails. If traffic does shoot up fast, then there is
new budget :).
The larger sites have more media, like screenshots. We're talking > 2GB of
images and growing for our games site and there are plans for more
multimedia/image-heavy sites. Even with rsync, this takes time to sync and a
much more suitable solution is a stripped down apache geared towards serving
images (keep-alive, mod_headers, mod_expire) and prolly an inbound squid.
For our main site, I'm already considering load-balancing in a simple
round-robin, because it has doubled traffic over the last year and is still
growing, but I'd rather have one copy of a site to worry about.
Or maybe I should think about a NAS solution...
FreeBSD sarevok.webteckies.org 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #3: Tue Dec 30
14:31:47 CET 2003
root at sarevok.idg.nl:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SAREVOK_NOAPM_NODEBUG i386
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hardware/attachments/20040107/fb2ca047/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-hardware