Does anyone have a strong argument against splitting up html and images on 2 servers?

In my case this would mean using tera-byte's webhosting (20gig/month) as an image server and another server to generate the html. I figure caching will save the day in the end anyway yeah?

Does tera-byte really mean 20gig btw? The price of bandwidth here in colo is rather high, so if i can cut 3/4 of my bandwidth this way whats to stop me?

Tks for any insights.

Well, some ad-filtering proxies block off-server images, so depending upon how you had it setup that might cause problems. But as for the general principle, yes many companies have their images served by separate servers; keeping the content served by any one server homogenous makes it easier to optimize for that specific task. In particular, a static-only server can have a much lower memory overhead while increasing performance over bloated throw-everything-in-except-the-kitchen-sink servers like Apache.