I am going to get a dedicated server really soon and would like some information on capacity. Is it smarter to have two #1s with 250 sites on each or one #2 with 500 sites?

#1 1u RackMount WebServer
PIII-933mhz Processor
512mb SDRAM
40gb EIDE Hard Drive
RedHat Linux 6.22
Apache WebServer

#2 1u RackMount WebServer
Dual PIII-933mhz Processor
1gb SDRAM
80gb EIDE Hard Drive
RedHat Linux 6.22
Apache WebServer

It's allways smarter to have 2 #1's ..

if one of them has a problem, only 1/2 of your customer base is affected, you don't what to put all of your eggs in one basket

CRego3D makes a good point, but there are several reasons why #2 might be better:

1. Load balancing. Web sites don't have constant traffic; the more sites you have per server the more you can handle traffic variability without running into performance problems.

2. Manageability. One server is easier to manage than two.

3. Caching. There will be files which both servers would to access; having a single server means that memory, and importantly caches, are shared, leading to improved performance.

That all said, unless you're expecting a very heavy dynamic load, I would cut down on the processor or get a 2U with (at least) two RAIDed drives; the systems you list are very unbalanced for serving primarily static content.

I'd also use FreeBSD instead and install the latest Apache performance patches from SGI.

You left out: What's the cost of two #1s vs. one #2? How much total bandwidth and IPs do you get with two #1s vs. one #2?

Based on the information you supplied, two #1s is *most definitely* the way to go. You might have some minor performance advantage with #2 (which is quite possibly entirely theoretical), but if you're trying to run a small hosting company, the aforementioned "all your eggs in one basket" adage should be a primary consideration.

Dual PIII-933mhz Processor

Wouldnt this be one machine? If so then if one processor crashes, the other continues to work?

Originally posted by kunal
Dual PIII-933mhz Processor

Wouldnt this be one machine? If so then if one processor crashes, the other continues to work?

RFLMAO!

Uh, no it doesn't work quite like that.

Thats what I thought...

Ok.. I did it again... I got confused in the posts :(.
I read, carlo's post like this
It's allways smarter to have a #2 ..


So I thought, he said get #2, which would inturn give Ironlung the benefit of having one half of his server running always. My mistake :( :(

*goes back under his rock*