I just joined a few days ago and this is my first post.

I've decided to try to move my consulting business into web hosting. There seems to be a market for it in this area, so I thought that I'd give it a shot. I've added it to my business plan.

I thought that I'd spend a few months using a reseller. Concurrently, I'd build a machine and run a few sites on it, adding and learning tools as I go along. I could then move the rest of the sites over as I get more proficient. Server hardware is the following (only have motherboard, processor, and RAM at this time) - I can upgrade if I get some business. Currently, I've been promised about 8 sites - only one of them is more than just HTML.

Antek 1080 Performance Plus Case with 430 TruePower supply
Athlon XP 2500 Barton
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe (onboard Gigabit LAN controller)
One of the following:
2 120 GB Maxtor 6Y120M0 SATA (RAID 0/1)
2 160 GB Samsung SP1604N ATA (RAID 0/1)
2 36.7 GB Seagate ST336607LW (RAID 0/1)
Matrox Millenium 8MB (old) for display
Lite-On 52/32/52 CD-RW or Pioneer A06 Combo
Generic Floppy Drive (I have plenty of them)

Red Hat 9 or Debian 3.0r2 and Apache for server.

Comments/suggestions/opinions? I'm completely new at the web hosting game, though I've been working with Linux (most user-level) for about 10 years, have designed websites with Python/Perl/PHP, and administered Apache and all virtual hosts for an ISP five years ago.

Thanks.

Are you going to co-locate that machine?

If yes you wouldn't have any use for a CDRW Drive and i would suggest using a rackmount case instead of a tower since alot of datacenters do not take towers.

You should also take a look at datacenters, connections and prices, which are even more important the server components themself.
I really think that using Intel processors are better(AMD's heat up quickly) + they have a better usage on the NET.

About the HD's, many LINUX pros. told me that the best HD's that work with LINUX are the SATA disks(Thats what they said), but again if you could afford the SCSI drives then forget about the rest.

Exactly you wont need the CD-RW drive.

How many sites are you looking on hosting on this server.

Thats again my opinion, and since you have the stated hardware, stick to them, but one more last question "How much is ur budget?" that question will let us help you even more in this concern.

Athlon XP 2500 Barton

You could easily overclock this to a 3200 without it ever falling over :D

Regards

DislexiK

Thanks for the replies.

1. No clear at this point on the hosting parameters, but note that this is probably a sideline not a full business. Will start with probably 10 sites through whichever reseller I use. Hoping to get a lot of switchovers - hosting in this area is saturated, but expensive or unreliable, a lot of dissatisfaction. Plan to get throughput and useage stats from current providers - expect to get some stats this week. Would eventually like to get 100-200 small sites, a few with ecommerce and some custom software. Practically no PHP or mySQL - most will just be HTML. Eventually would like to get more intensive commerce sites. Will need to run a 2003 server/IIS/.NET server at some point as well if money allows. Does this help give a picture?
2. Will probably be colocating it if I can't get a good deal from my cable provider for a static IP and bandwidth. Yes, need to research datacenters.
3. I know nothing about rackmounts. Suggestions on getting information or on choices?
4. I agree with using Intel parts, but the Asus and Barton are what I have to work with for now. I wonder if an overclocked Barton will run OK in a 1u case?
5. Let's say that my budget is about 1-2K for now. I don't want to spend any money until I know what I'm doing! What should my budget be with the parameters I've given?
6. SATA support is good in Linux, but SCSI support is great. But, SCSI is expensive, so it will probably be 100 MHz SATA for now.
7. Yeh, will definitely overclock the Barton. That's why I have this setup.

Regarding OC'ing the CPU. I don't really think it is needed for the amount of sites you plan on. I know alot of hosters with as little as 1.3 Celerons running hosting companies so a 2500+ should be just fine.

You would probably save money by either renting a machine at a data center or co-lo. A decent line going into your house cost $$$ and with some of the great dedicated deals around it just doesn't make sense.

Another thing to think about is control panel software for your clients. They love to click on things!

Thanks for the feedback. I notice that you don't mention anything about resellers. Do you think that it might be better to start out by renting a managed/unmanaged server, or would that be the next logical step after reselling? This way, I guess that I could get more hands-on experience actually administering the server. And maybe not even purchasing hardware for some time - rather use the hardware that I described for something else, and just purchasing dedicated hardware when I know what my customer load might be?

I'd really like to be able to administer my own server. I mean, I know Linux fairly well, but haven't administered a commercial web server by myself. I could jump into it, but I don't want to start taking on customers without knowing what I'm doing well!

As far as control panel software, I'm familiar with Cpanel - I thought that it would be a good start. But I need to do more research. Other software - have looked at Php-Nuke, Webmin, and others.

I was actually joking about over clocking. Come to think of it, the only point that my system falls over regarding over clocking is games, and even then it takes a while, I have it at 2200MHz (3200+) from 1833MHz (2500+)

In theory you could get it to at least 2100MHz without breaking a sweat

And I am sure you know this, but decent ram if you wish to over clock, otherwise the system will fall over.

I got:

Barton 2500+
Abit NF7-S Motherboard
2x 512 DDR400 Corsair CL2 2-3-2 RAM
Total costing: £340 ish

Regarding hard drive, yeah sure go SATA I think its best, its cheaper as well, I would personally only go SCSI if I had more than one hard drive, this is because the SCSI cable and advantages are made for 2+ devices. I mean at least you will have the same read/write speeds on a SATA as SCSI (If you get a SATA @ 10,000 RPM. But if it really counts for the amount of data that can be sent and received by the hard drive go ahead and get SCSI.

I wouldn’t get SCSI for a machine like an single processor, I have a thing in my mind, hard processing means hard devices. By this I mean, if its for web hosting little sites but still many, PATA or SATA is great (SATA better than anything) if its for many, many sites, running vast amount of MySQL, people seem to think SCSI is best, and also a dual processor?

I love Athlon, and I am going back on my religion here but, maybe thinking about a Pentium 4 with 800FSB, dual channeling DDR400 RAM and you will get no bottle necks from CPU to your ram, (If you get a mobo that can with hold 800MHz FSB of course)

That’s a point, can you? If not then Pentium are surely too far ahead because courses bottle necks if you have a CPU that can send and receive data at 800MHz, a motherboard that can transfer data at 400MHz and then the RAM (Dual Channel) sends and receives at 800MHz, the motherboard will slow it down, or when you dual channel does it up the frequency of the motherboard as well as the ram?

See, there is always more to thinking than speed

Regards

DislexiK

I would suggest that you slow it down and don't even think about selling hosting until you are a several notches over "absolute newbie". Otherwise, this venture is likely to fail or end up as a disaster. JMHO

You really shouldn't overclock any CPU in a server. Why risk instability and a shorter CPU life for a few extra Mhz ?

Why risk instability and a shorter CPU life for a few extra Mhz ?

Theres me thinking that 360MHz is more than a 2MHz :O ;)

Shorter life? I think not, in a years - 3 years time this dude will want to upgrade anyway.

instability, hmmm mine works fine and mine is under heavy loads about 6 hours a day, only in games does it go a little wierd, but it does not help I have a low rated graphics card, to have a Radeon 9800 Pro 256 DDR400 would allow for me to always run at 2200MHz instead of 1833MHz in games and 2200MHz in games

Regards

DislexiK

You are considering games here and not a server. Overclocking causes instability, the need for greater cooling and shorter component life, no questions asked. Whilst often the CPUs can operate at a higher speed, in most cases they have not been designed to.

Reallistically, your I/O is going to be the bottleneck anyway.

What it seems you have is a workstation / games machine. They differ greatly to machines designed for server usage.

Vox, but the point is to have good ventilation/air circulation. Have hardware that allows for overclocking. For example have a barton 2500+ overclocked @ 400FSB means you need a motherboard that is used for overclocking and allows for 400FSB, and you need DDR400 or higher RAM.

Simple as that. No bottle necks this way, the RAM can send and receive data at 3.2GB/s, CPU can send and receive at 3.2GB/s and the motherboard/FSB can transfer data at 3.2GB/s

(3.2GB/s is rounded, it’s more like 3.05GB/s)

Regards

DislexiK

Sorry, im with Matt here.
Overclocking servers is NOT a good idea...

If you think your going to need that kind of speed, pay for it.

Regards.
Thomas Currie

What about backing your argument up?

Regards

~DislexiK - The only guy on this forum that says WHY!

I'll let others do that for me, as im sure most will be on this side.
I am just leaving to go to the office also, so no time.

Regards,
Thomas Currie

Fair enough, I will wait for people to back up your arguement, but I would honestly like to know why overclocking (if the hardware can handle it) is bad

Regards

DislexiK

I'm an old modder from way back. ;) Geez I even OC'ed my PDA!

But I don't like to get into that on the servers, If I wanted higher clock speeds I would buy faster chips. OC'ing for me is like a hobby and as you know OC'ing something usually requires changing bios settings dip switches etc to keep everything running smooth. Besides the fact there is a chance of making the system un bootable, Higher heat in the case etc. If anything does mess up I don't have physical access to the machines.

I couldn't see myself explaining to one of the datacenter techs that he has to go into the bios and bring the FSB settings down... ;)

Originally posted by DislexiK
Vox, but the point is to have good ventilation/air circulation. Have hardware that allows for overclocking. For example have a barton 2500+ overclocked @ 400FSB means you need a motherboard that is used for overclocking and allows for 400FSB, and you need DDR400 or higher RAM.

Simple as that. No bottle necks this way, the RAM can send and receive data at 3.2GB/s, CPU can send and receive at 3.2GB/s and the motherboard/FSB can transfer data at 3.2GB/s

(3.2GB/s is rounded, it’s more like 3.05GB/s)

Regards

DislexiK

Well considering Serial ATA has a maximum of 600 MB/s and is currently nowhere near that, what is the point? The majority of work your server is doing will be facilitiating requests for web pages, which requires disk access. Hence my comment that I/O is the bottleneck.

Any more responses to my original plan and my last post, like b.m.2? Any more recommendations on someone in my situation starting with reselling, managed/unmanaged servers, colocation, or maybe not starting at all?

To DislexiK: Thanks for the responses. I do not have any experience with administering a web hosting box, but I would never overclock a production server. Why? You introduce variables of instability into a stable system.

First, the inherent instability of the processor - it's just not designed to run at higher speeds, though it will.
I’ve never overclocked a part that has run rock solid even under the best conditions, though the 2500 core has a good reputation. I’ve seen memory parity errors and data errors that can only be explained by problems with latching and sync’ing the clock on cycles.

Second, the heat is going to create a unstable variable. If you’re running a machine with an overclocked part, SATA/SCSI drives at 10K/15K, a higher-end Radeon card – you’re going to be generating a lot of heat. And if you don’t get a Radeon, then the video card may already be overclocked. I don’t have much experience with rackmount cases, but it’s hard to imagine that a machine like this isn’t going to require a lot of careful handling, plus a lot of fans and thermal grease. Maybe I’m wrong.

However, to optimize use of the setup that I describe (but not for server use) purely for speed, overclocking is a good option. The mobo and PC3200 RAM (Corsair by the way – low-latency 2-3-2-6) will do FSB 400 MHz. The 2500 is at 333 and is NOT multiplier-locked.

Agree about SCSI. Performance is not good with a single drive because of the overhead on the drive controller. SCSI is best with at least two drives in a multi-tasking environment, and multi-processing certainly helps. SATA is the best bridge and will be even better when TCQ controllers are integrated in the drive architecture - the capability is already available in firmware. However, my board has a PCI-bound SiL RAID controller so I’m not expecting to get a tremendous amount of a speed hike if I go SATA RAID currently.

But, either way, I can't image using my own machine until I know more about how to administer hosts for awhile. Which brings up my original thread...

voxtreme-matt

Ahh yes the reply I was expecting, however Matt (Is that your name?) the hard drives are ona different bus to that of the RAM, (Graphics card) and CPU, therefore that is not taken into account when overclocking. As you should know, however I am not one for knowing if you can overclock south bridge bus?

Regards

DislexiK