I am looking for a provider for 2 things:

1) Windows 2003 Dedicated servers (PIV - Xeons)

2) A company that can provide #1, but I would be looking for pricing to buy 2 servers and sync them for full redundancy. Ie. If one server crashes, it simply switches over.

These servers are VERY important to my client, therefore, I will be looking at quality/reliability before prices. Who can you suggest?

Please note this is not a request for companies to email/PM me. I am looking for recommendations. Thank you.

Try FastServers.net, I beleive they can set something like this for you at a very resonable price.

Also check out Rackspace, this type of setup shouldent be a problem for them as well, but they are expensive.

If you can opt for UNIX based servers, also check out burst.net

Thanks for the suggestions Arsalan. I will take a look into them. Unfortunately, the servers must be Windows due to existing MSSQL databases and ASP scripts/.Net framework.

Hardware Load Balancer would be the best choice. There are tools Microsoft have written to do synchronization or cluster management.

VanHost, Then fastservers.net is your safest bet! Great Support, Great People (i could have said Great Prices, but they are just "a bit" expensive then the other providers).

Depending on your budget, there are a couple I would recommend:

www.theplanet.com
www.xiolink.com

Now, quick question. If I have 2 hard drives in the computer, is it possible/easier to just sync the drives so that if the server/HD crashes, it can be pulled and installed in a new server?

Yes, but at the planet it would take atleast 3-4 hours, same at most of the other providers as well.

Right, thanks.

No, it is not. Having 2 server is much better and much faster fail over.

Originally posted by Mfjp
No, it is not.

I am guessing you are referring to it not being easier, and I agreed. I had a brain fart thinking that it may not be possible and then thought "I just mirrored a drive today" so I don't know what I was thinking :D

Give Rob at route256.com a call. They do mostly Linux but I'm sure he can help you out.

Mission critical is what they do. You won't have to worry about waiting for support. You call it gets fixed immediatly :)

Originally posted by VanHost
I am guessing you are referring to it not being easier, and I agreed. I had a brain fart thinking that it may not be possible and then thought "I just mirrored a drive today" so I don't know what I was thinking :D

What i'm referring to is the hassle to get up and running again. Mirror disk is really only good against disk failure (which is the most common), if the PSU or cooling and such fail, it wouldn't help. Also, having 2 server behind load balaners give you much more performance if you use them in an Active/Active state.

This is very true, but also an expensive solution.

I believe the request was for a standby setup, that would initiate a switch over when the main server dies. Even a manual switch over would be great if it can happen within 10-20 minutes. Does anyone know of a ready made solution of that nature? Surely the problem is not about technical issues but about having the least cost solution, right?

Originally posted by privHost
Surely the problem is not about technical issues but about having the least cost solution, right?

Wrong, I am looking for the most reliable solution, not the cheapest. I understand the value of getting what you pay for here, so I'm not afraid to pay for quality/reliability.

Of course, quality does demand extra efforts and that normally translates to higher cost. The reverse may not be true though :).

I was commenting on the relative cost of having a standby setup versus a true load-balancing solution. If one only needs a standby server setup then getting a true load balancing solution is probably over-engineered. So the least-cost solution (that satisfies the requirements) is better in this sense. The quality of the implementation of the selected solution is a different issue altogether.

Anyway, if you do find a suitable solution, we would be interested in knowing too.

Yes, I think I misunderstood you. We are pretty much just looking to have a setup whereby one server runs everything day/night. The second server would mirror the first server on a daily basis, so that if server one crashes, traffic is re-routed to server two.

Make sense?

Yes, you only need to sync the servers with a sceduler in windows and use a Load Balancer that sits infront to detect outage.

Mfjp,
Would you elaborate a bit more on your solution?

You don't really need a hardware load balancer. You could use the NLB feature built into W2K3SE and EE.

The best and optimal solution for this is a hardware based load balancer or a DNS based solution that can do failover.

Many things need to be thought out before jumping into a failover situation such as the following...

-= How will DNS be handled, being off the server would be recommended.

-= How will E-Mail be handled, being off the server would also be recommend.

-= Data Sync - will any SQL server be involved with the solution and what kind of updated need to take place, how often, any what is going to handle the replication.

I believe there are a couple great options available at a price point that makes this very reasonable...

1.) DNS based failover, there are many services that offer quick refresh times (under 5 minutes) from updating records, this makes DNS hosted by a 3rd party and a low amount of downtime if you have proper monitoring and an action plan in place in the event of a failure. It also lets you host 2 servers in 2 seperate locations adding redundancy. The downfall is data syncing the boxes, if you have a large amount of data or data that needs updated multiple times during the day you hosting provider will most likely count this towards your bandwidth. The other downfall is if you have a lot of domains, paying $1.00/$2.00 per domain can start to add up.

2.) Hardware based load balancing is going to insure you on the hardware of OS failure. Your servers will be in the same DC and most likely connected via private lan. Data sync should not count towards your bandwidth, replication will be a lot faster. The major downfall is you loose the ability to have servers located in 2 geographical locations.

The hardware based load balancer in this situation sits in front on the servers and is assigned a primary IP. Each of the other servers each get an IP. You then DNS the primary IP and the load balancer/failover device handles where to send traffic. It can either be configured to take turns on each of the servers or send all traffic to one server and if a failure occurs, send it the second.

I have quoted and configured both solutions over the course of the last couple of years, both have worked flawless with the exception to the downfalls I have mentioned.

Originally posted by Arsalan
Mfjp,
Would you elaborate a bit more on your solution?

A picture probably explains it all. It would be similar to this with less servers. http://ethr.net/LB.gif

thanks :)

Are you running databases?

If all you're doing is static content/asp without a database, then get two servers with ThePlanet (I highly recommend them) with a private cross-connect between them. FTP your files on a regular basis from one to another and use Windows Load Balancing to handle failover.

Databases are a little more complex.

You should go with Mfjp as he is clearly answering all your questions and he seems to be doing these sort of setups a lot. And he also has a good network.:)

Originally posted by TechSolution
Are you running databases?

Yes, there are databases. There are multiple databases ranging from 3gb to 40gb. And yes, those numbers are correct.

Thanks for everyone's help so far, and apologize for not posting in awhile. I have been reading everything though ;)

Do you mind having replication delays in your database?

If you don't mind: no problem...

If you do, you're best off with one extremely powerful database server with redundancy (power supplies and hard drives) with hotswap and having multiple P4 front-end web servers.



Hmm... Are there any dedicated hosts that provide systems with full redundancy (like hotswap drives/power supplies/etc.) and advertise it as such?

I'd recommend going

As far as I remember, there is an option in MSSQL which lets you sync databases on two servers...

You can sync two (or more) MS SQL servers, but with any form of replication you encounter propagation delays.