How many sites is recommended to host with this server?
866 MHZ Pentium III, 256KB cache
128 MB ECC RAM
20.5 GB, EIDE Hard Drive
RedHat 6.2

You can have quite a few clients on that machine but I like to see at each machine individually.

It depends on a few things:

1. Are there a lot of users using CGI scripts/interacting with MySQL or any other db?

2. Are there a lot of sites that use a lot of bandwidth?

Of course under normal circumstances you can host about 250 clients but I wouldn't suggest that.

I think that about 150 clients would be sufficient for a server of those specs.

That's just my opinion of course. :)

Originally posted by emke
You can have quite a few clients on that machine but I like to see at each machine individually.

It depends on a few things:

1. Are there a lot of users using CGI scripts/interacting with MySQL or any other db?

2. Are there a lot of sites that use a lot of bandwidth?
I Dunno :) I still don't have the server. I'm waiting until VO give it to me. :sleeping:
'Cause is my first server I ask about it.

That's just my opinion of course. :)
Thanks a Lot :beer:

Originally posted by Jedito
How many sites is recommended to host with this server?
866 MHZ Pentium III, 256KB cache
128 MB ECC RAM
20.5 GB, EIDE Hard Drive
RedHat 6.2

You probably won't like this answer: Zero.

The processor has more power than any Linux-based web server needs because the processor isn't doing much in the way of work serving up sites and running scripts. It's all RAM and HD action, and that's where this server falls way short of the mark.

Do what I've recommended below and you'll be able to run as many sites off that server as you can pack in. And you'll be able to provide better than average service.

A) That cheap but spacious EIDE hard drive represents a single point of failure.

When, not if, it crashes, all of your sites are down until you install a new one. Even if you have a formatted spare with the OS loaded standing by, and a monitoring system to page you when it happens (usually at 3 am on a Sunday morning), you'll still have to shut down the server, open her up, swap out the drive, close her up, restore the data from your most recent tape backup, and then notify your customers of the outage and let them know that there may be missing data (depending on if they had any changes to their site since the last backup).

If your clients are doing business through their website, it could cost them lost revenue, and if they are using one of the popular UBB's like this one, it could cost them many angry flames from their users whose threads are lost.

There are ways to set up RAID arrays using EIDE drives, which are cheaper than setting up an ultrawide SCSI RAID array-but without the hotswap capability, so you'll still have to shut down your server to replace one of the drives if it fails.

B) Add more RAM. All it takes is one person running bad code (and many of them do) and your server resources will be consumed before you can get that runaway code halted, and you run the risk of a crash. I'd recommend 256MB as a minimum, but as cheap as RAM is these days, why not blow yourself to 512MB or 1GB and save yourself a lot of worry.

Phoenix said it all. Allot of sites are using what I call "home made" servers. Basically third party build not Compaq, Dell or the others. And that's fine but you have to be careful in doing it. Why put yourself in a situation that can cripple your business. Get a good server, one that can stand up to the challenge. Use the specs that Phoenix recommended

512 megs of mem or more (personally, I think 512 should be the minimum.
20 or 36 gb HD
RAID 1 SCSI 10k rpm HD (saves you time to replace the drive)

I add 256 MB more, now I have 384 MB, I'll start whit this, I can affort more right now, I expend alot of money and still don't have revenues. Maybe, later, when I have some customers, I'll add more.
But do you think that 384 MB is enough to start?
Regards

Aloha,
well like others have said go for RAM and SCSI
I like seagate drives
go here: http://www.storagereview.com for some good reading on drives.
memory get Mushkin or Crucial (Micron) (i use Micron)
get at least 512 soem other server hacks can say more but for a server get registered ECC its a tad slower but worth it
also get CL2 if ya can (cas latency)
crucial (http://www.crucial.com/store/ListModule.asp?module=168-pin+DIMM&x=17&y=10) 256 meg x2 = $225 cheap insurance when customers cost more than that to get an hold do not loose em on skimping out
just some thoughts ;)

I don't choose :)
I rent a dedicated server in VO they provide me all the hardware.
As I say before, I don't have money now (Still don't launch the site), I'll wait until have some customers to get some $$$ and buy a scsii and more memory.
Regards

Hi,


I have a really cheap celeron 500 with 64 MB ram ded. server. I have 20 - 30 clients hosted there. I have DNS service and POP/SMTP. mySQL is installed. Very light usage. It is currently serving 5 - 10 GB / month and I really do not intend to put anymore client on it. I will keep it as a backup server and as a mail server.


Thank you,

Cedric

If you are just starting out I think you would do much better reselling then starting with your own box. This will allow you to have a more reliable system and only pay for whats used.

Once you have a grasp on things and have enough customers you can then migrate to your own box(s)

-BW

It's quite usual to have 200-400 domain/sites hosted on a server with basic features but it depends on the configuration, hardware, and your connection speed which is very important and also the usage of server resources that you offer your clients.

The above was quoted to me by Hosts who rent servers so I believe it's true.

Off Topic:
I have one reseller account where my Host provide 50MB and I can host 25 sites of 2MB each for small sites at $1 each per month besides the reseller cost of $7.50 per month which they charge me.


So if you don't have very good experience with maintaining a server, perhaps being a reseller would be the other option to provide web hosting.

Im about to buy 2 x 20.5 GB EIDE hard drives (in the same server) with RackSpace? No tape backup (too expensive). Instead disk-to-disk manual backups are made.

What are the chances of data loss/failure of the hard drive with this method?
:confused:

Doing backup to a second disk instead of a tape drive is quite common in this industry and cheap, but it's very risky. Think of the controller itself going bad (or any other piece of hardware) or someone breaking into your server and deleting everything (he will not be so nice to delete just the first drive).
Daily backup is expensive (all colos charge for this) so many hosts save the money. But on the long run I think hosts without a reliable backup will not exist.
Just my 2c.

Which would you say is the most redundant, for data backups etc:

1) Running two servers in parallel (giving load balancing and redundancy)
2) Running a tape with the server.
3) Having a 2 SCSI drives with RAID 1.

2) Running a tape with the server.
3) Having a 2 SCSI drives with RAID 1

You can't compare this two options. 2) is to provide a backup, 3) is to minimize downtime if one hard disk fails - and only that! For example, if someone deletes all RAID will let you alone!

interesting...
Walter do you mean that a tape drive is the only way to backup the data on the server reliably?

RAID backup is a less expensive solution and a nicer solution if you ask me. You can get some good ata/100 drives and set them up with RAID5. Then just NFS the partition over and backup regularly.

vizi, RAID is no backup at all! RAID is a way to enhance performance or to have no downtime if one drive fails, it is no backup. How much examples shall I bring???
I quote myself Think of the controller itself going bad (or any other piece of hardware) or someone breaking into your server and deleting everything (he will not be so nice to delete just the first drive).
The only way to do a backup is to copy the data to a media with no connection to the server at all, e.g. a tape which is changed daily.