:rolleyes:

I'm getting a new server from burstnet and just wanted to get some imput

Do you think I really need a SCSI hard drive? The IDE servers are cheaper but I plan to setup about 200 accounts on the sever? I'm really looking to save $ $ $

Pentium 800
1024 MB Memory
60 GB IDE

What do you think, Should I go SCSI

THANKS

Yes, if you do not want problems with HDD failure.

IDE and SCSI is like day and night. SCSI is much better

Yes, if you do not want problems with HDD failure.

SCSI HD can also crashes.

This has been talked about many times on the board.. have a search i remember a huge thread with regards to the scsi vs ide battle.

If you can afford it go scsi...

Craig.

Try really hard not to go skimpy when hosting 200 accounts on a single machine. You're gonna need power and speed. I'd go with SCSI.

Also SCSIs are known to fail, but the failure rate is much less than IDE drives.

How does this sound

Dual 800Mhz
256MB memorey
36GB SCSI
$399.95

Do I need more memorey?

What is the max accounts I should put on this?

Thanks

I would suggest you get 1 GB ram.

Here are some tips, that will help you a bit:

- I run 400 sites on IDE drive with no problems for several years
- What about back up? What will happen if your disk fails? According to your specs you will loose the business.
- you will not need all that CPU power from the begining

So what you need, if your are on small budget:
- DUAL CPU MB with 1 CPU, upgradebale to 2 CPUs
if you run all services on a single server (web, mail, sql) than
- 512MB RAM upgradebale to 1024+ MB
- 1 SCSI primary drive + 1 IDE backup drive

Every night or so you update files on your backup drive. Do it at night, when server load is minimal. IDE drive can easily generate
10MB/sec (80 mbps) - it is much more than your network is capable to handle or your ISP will allow you to allocate ;) The more memory you have in your server the less critical HDD speed becomes.

On the other hand SCSI is more reliable and faster, and uses less CPU resources, so if you can afford - use SCSI.

If you have $10K - $12K to start with: build a server for each service: web, mail, sql, dns, control panel, log. You do not need fast expensive servers for mail, log and dns, but they must be reliable.

If you have any further questions - post here and I will try to answer and help.

Do you think I should just go with IDE because SCSI is very expensive? I plan to have many sites what do you think should be the account cut off limit.

People keep telling me stay away from IDE?

How does this sound

Single 800Mhz Pentium
1024MB Memeory
60GB IDE
50GB Transfer
$249.95

Please advive on if I should just rule our IDE because I dont want to pay cheap for it now and pay more later because of customer problems

Thanks

In general IDE disks are OK. SCSI is better though. If you plan to host normal sites, your IDE disk performance will be OK for 200 or even 300 sites. Again, I have a server with 400 sites on IDE disk.

Keep in mind that 90% of them will be idle most of time ;)

But why you do not put a back-up disk? What will you answer on all that angry calls, when your single HDD fails?

"Sorry, Sir, but we do not have your data any more, Sir......."

Just put that second 5400 rpm $80 disk in the box for peace of mind. I highly recommend.

As for the price, I do not know. I payed $500 to RackSpace a while back, but did not care, cause that server brought $3k per month for me :)

You seem to know alot about hardware.

I will add a backup IDE like you said.

I will take your advice and go IDE with both drives (Main drive & backup drive)

Are you sure I'll be alright with IDE?

Would SCSI pull the website up fater than IDE?
I'll be using http://www.burst.net/servers/
Tell me what you think

The SCSI sytems cost more than IDE but with IDE you get alot of spcae almost 3x as much.

How big is that IDE drive you have with 400 sites?

Help me ! !
Thanks

This isn't really true anymore.
Most manufacturers use the same drive base for both SCSI and IDE drives.

Originally posted by allera
Also SCSIs are known to fail, but the failure rate is much less than IDE drives. [/B]

Most manufacturers use the same drive base for both SCSI and IDE drives

Really? So they take a 10k SCSI drive and run it at 7200 or slower for IDE? Why do they slow it down for IDE if it's the same components? The 15k and 10k Cheetah's and the Atlas 10K II's that I have don't look like the IDE drives that I have -- from the outside at least. When you say drive base, which components exactly does this include?

Cannot agree with it:

Most manufacturers use the same drive base for both SCSI and IDE drives.

Consider IBM drives:

SCSI 10K rpm @9GB, 18GB, 36GB, etc warranty 5 years
IDE 7,2K rpm @20GB, 40GB, 60GB, etc warranty 3 years

Again, I would like to say:

SCSI is a better solution, but IDE in most cases is enough.
I run 400 sites with 20GB IDE disk, but note, there are no warez, adult sites or very CGI intensive sites on that server.

On the other hand, i run 1000 sites on another server, wich has
3 x 18GB U160 drives, 2 x 1000MHz CPUs and 4GB RAM. There are several CPU intensive sites on this machine. Note: both machines for web servers only, SQL and mail servers are on another physical servers.

So, if you plan to put 200 - 250 sites, you will be happy with IDE drives. Put a lot of memory, and your disks will not be used so often.