Recommendation for Dual-CPU systems

Melvyn Sopacua freebsd-hardware at
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 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #3: Tue Dec 30 
14:31:47 CET 2003     
root at  i386
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: signature
Url :

More information about the freebsd-hardware mailing list