View Poll Results: Which is better?
- Voters
- 44. You may not vote on this poll
-
A lot of low-quality servers
16 36.36% -
Few high-quality servers
28 63.64%
Results 1 to 25 of 43
Thread: Quantity or Quality
Hybrid View
-
07-22-2009, 08:04 PM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 110
Quantity or Quality
In your opinion, is it better for a hosting company to have 100 low-quality dedicated servers or 25 high-quality dedicated servers?
Imagine that you have 10,000 websites you are hosting. Would you rather divide those 10,000 websites between 25 high quality servers or 100 low quality servers? 10,000 is just an example.
-
07-22-2009, 08:08 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Posts
- 4,568
I'd rather have 100 low quality servers because if something happened to one, there wouldn't be such an impact.
-
07-22-2009, 08:09 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 110
-
07-22-2009, 08:17 PM #4Corporate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Houston, Texas, USA
- Posts
- 3,262
I'll go with the quality servers option without a doubt.
RegardsUNIXy - Fully Managed Servers and Clusters - Established in 2006
Server Management - Unlimited Servers. Unlimited Requests. One Plan!
cPanel Varnish Plugin -- Seamless SSL Caching (Let's Encrypt, AutoSSL, etc)
Slow Site or Server? Unable to handle traffic? Same day performance fix: joe@unixy
-
07-22-2009, 10:40 PM #5The Linux Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- /root
- Posts
- 23,991
Specially 4 U
Reseller Hosting: Boost Your Websites | Fully Managed KVM VPS: 3.20 - 5.00 Ghz, Pure Dedicated Power
JoneSolutions.Com is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions, server management and services since 2001
Debian|Ubuntu|cPanel|DirectAdmin|Enhance|Webuzo|Acronis|Estela|BitNinja|Nginx
-
07-22-2009, 08:25 PM #6Virtually Flawless ;)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- USA / UK
- Posts
- 4,577
Lots of low quality servers are better!
If people wanted a few high quality servers then mainframes would be much more popular.→ RAM Host -- USA Premium & Budget Linux Hosting
█ Featuring Powerful cPanel Shared Hosting
█ & Premium Virtual Dedicated Servers
→ Follow us on Twitter
-
07-22-2009, 09:06 PM #7THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Fewer number of servers, easier for system administration, and human error/system administration is probably the largest source of downtime. That should also allow you to get additional redundancy built into the servers. Even though you'll affect more customers when you do go down, you should really never go down in the first place.
Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
07-22-2009, 09:11 PM #8Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 341
I would choose (already have with my company) more servers - less number of clients per server. That makes the management harder, but that way anytime we may experience some problem with some server, any type of problem, less users have impact... my clients are everything to me so I choose the longer path.
Downtime eventually happens. That is something you cannot escape, with 25 or 100 servers.Last edited by xeno007; 07-22-2009 at 09:17 PM.
-
07-22-2009, 10:46 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Pacific Palisades, CA
- Posts
- 3,641
I vote for low-quality (whatever that is). I don't think the low-q version will be 4x likelier to fail as your example ratio presumes.
█ Collabora Hosting - Unlimited Windows and Linux Hosting
█ Web Security - VPS - Dedicated Servers
█ Cloud and Managed WordPress Hosting
█ Read how we do Unlimited Hosting at the Unlimited FAQ
-
07-22-2009, 11:29 PM #10THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
Correct, the 100 low-end systems will likely have MORE than 4x the actual number of failures. This is because you're using lower-end, less redundant hardware AND have 4x as many systems. That is why I say the fewer systems should be the choice, better hardware = higher reliability, and then add on less system management to that.
Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
07-22-2009, 11:43 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
what would you say about google then?
they always claim that they use low end servers, what kind of servers do they have in place?
-
07-23-2009, 12:00 AM #12THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
My answer did not apply to all cases or all applications, it was specifically relating to someone running a web host, who is asking for advise on WHT.
1) Google goes for the best value for the cost, looking at the cost for the life of the system, not specifically going with low end hardware. Also, certainly some of their hardware is considered high-end by WHT standards. The cost calculation is very different if you're purchasing systems for use in your own wholly owned facilities or building it with dedicated servers.
2) They have developed a redundant "cluster" environment where individual system failure does not matter to them at all. Had the OP developed their own similar system, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be asking this question.
3) The environment Google runs would also require specifically custom made applications, including a web server, mail server, control panel, back-end management, etc. I am assuming the OP has not gone through that trouble.
So yes, if you have the development resources of Google, sure go that route, but I'm assuming you don't. Simply put, the array of applications needed for fully featured shared hosting is much more complex to design for than an application with a single purpose, designed from the ground-up for that platform, such as Google Search, Gmail, etc.
Note: You can still go with a cluster type environment with a smaller number of systems, and I feel with doing this with dedicated servers you're going to get the most overall value by getting a smaller number of more powerful systems. The smaller number of systems will also result in less overhead in whatever virtualization layer you're using for the clustering, etc. At that point though you'd really need to do a full-out cost analysis, etc. as it then depends what exactly the "low end" and "high end" hardware is, etc.Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
07-23-2009, 12:13 AM #13Location = SoapBox
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 6,564
who cares?
I do not mean this in a confrontational manner what so ever, so, please do not take it that way...
We have some pretty advanced clusters setup, and we ONLY use high end, redundant equipment on each and every single node..
redundancy is nice - and its nice on all levels.. low end nodes only act to create points of failure... having high end systems with redundant, hot swap components - even in redundant, load balanced arrays - creates a better TCO then using arrays of low end servers... Google should already know this.. if they are willing to run on an inefficient TCO - that is their perogative - and they can certainly afford it - this however does not make it right - and lets face it - large corporations are not exactly known for making the best TCO decisions... (of course, this is assuming Google is really running low end systems in their arrays)www.cartika.com
www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems
-
07-23-2009, 12:20 AM #14THE Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- Location
- Chicago, IL
- Posts
- 6,957
We operate the same way, clusters of high end systems, but I disagree a bit on the Google side. They really are going for the lowest TCO on their equipment, but for them, the operational costs are the key there. Their cost scale simply ends up being very different than anyone here on WHT, thus you cannot make a direct correlation.
Karl Zimmerman - Founder & CEO of Steadfast
VMware Virtual Data Center Platform
karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
-
07-22-2009, 11:55 PM #15Location = SoapBox
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 6,564
honestly, there is no correct answer to this...
it really depends on what the expectations of the customer are and what type of service they are after... many customers will value quantity over quality and many customers will value quality over quantity.. good thing is, there are plenty of providers that fit both profiles - so, no matter what a customer prefers, there will be optionswww.cartika.com
www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems
-
07-23-2009, 12:17 AM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
na, i was wondering that as well, thanks for the answers, i didn't have a stand over this quantity vs quality thingy.
so just seeking for opinions.
thanks guys
-
07-23-2009, 12:12 PM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- North Carolina
- Posts
- 4,988
Personally, I'd rather have a few high quality servers. Easier to manage.
-
07-23-2009, 12:58 AM #18renegade
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,044
-
07-23-2009, 01:04 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 3,785
High quality servers. Fewer of them to worry about on an administrative side. Since they are of higher quality less failures. You also need to factor in licenses if you use say R1Soft you now have way more licenses to back everything up. If you're using a control panel if it's per machine once again another thing that'll cost more.
Only reason I can think of you using low end is if you cannot afford higher end machines.█ Tony B. - Chief Executive Officer
█ Hawk Host Inc. Proudly serving websites since 2004
█ Quality Shared and Cloud Hosting
█ PHP 5.2.x - PHP 8.1.X Support!
-
07-23-2009, 03:21 AM #20Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 820
And the answer is: it depends on your application.
If when a machine dies the only impact you see is a slight drop of overall capacity on your RRD graph, and there are no noticeable impacts (no downtime, no slow downs) and you can take your time to bring that machine back up, and node restoration is pretty much automatic (PXE boot with kickstart), go with many boxes. Obviously it only starts to make sense when you have enough of them.
If, on the other hand, a dead box requires immediate attention because X number of clients are offline, then I'd choose fewer high(er)-end boxes.
Other things to take into account: power and space requirements.Pings <1 ms, Unlimited Transfer, Lowest Price: http://localhost/
-
07-23-2009, 01:54 PM #21Location = SoapBox
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 6,564
exactly
I actually do not believe the bit about google using only low end servers..
but, it was a generic statement - as the OLD thought processes of building clusters was too use a LOT of low end gear and who cares if a node fails..
Unfortunately, ANY basic TCO study will show you that running, managing, maintaining, licensing, updating, power, space, monitoring, cabling, networking, etc, etc, etc 100 servers has a MUCH MUCH better TCO then 300 servers or 500 servers or 1000 servers..
so, you will, almost without exception, be better off running fewer, high end machines, vs double to triple the amount of low end gear..www.cartika.com
www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems
-
07-23-2009, 10:26 PM #22Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 221
Agreed. Especially 25 versus 100. If it were 1 high powered server versus 4 low powered ones I would say different (I would go with the four) but that is more due to placing all my eggs in one basket.
100 servers starts to become quite a task to administrate remotely. 25 is a bit more manageable.
-
07-23-2009, 10:57 PM #23Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 110
-
07-23-2009, 03:37 AM #24Junior Guru
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Utopia.
- Posts
- 222
High Quality Servers.
I would rather invest in good, powerful machines that use quality hardware which will reduce chance of failure. Also it saves on things such as licenses, eg cPanel.
-
07-23-2009, 03:53 AM #25Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Cluj Napoca
- Posts
- 469
I am curious where is this "fewer for the sysadmins to manage" comes from ?
Even if the number of servers will be smaller the number of clients will be the same and the hardware usually works ok so the sysadmin or the support will not have that much work on that part but the same on the client side.
You can have an argument for example if you are colocated and the colocation price wil increase rapidly with a lot servers.
Has anyone compared a Q9550 with a Xeon 5000 series ?
If we are talking about a lot of P4's then yes, you may go for a high end server and that also depends on the number of P4's.
I agree with the number of licenses.
It would have been easier if cPanel was multiserver here
Anyway depends on what you are doing with the hardware.
Similar Threads
-
Quality or Quantity?
By andrewklau in forum Other ReviewsReplies: 15Last Post: 07-06-2009, 10:56 AM -
In search of a high quality host. Quality over quantity!
By luminosity in forum Web HostingReplies: 23Last Post: 04-30-2009, 01:39 AM -
Quality over quantity, quantity over quality? Question for everyone
By Milovan in forum Web Hosting LoungeReplies: 4Last Post: 12-12-2006, 03:25 PM -
Quality vs Quantity
By NationHosts in forum Web HostingReplies: 24Last Post: 09-01-2006, 10:58 PM -
Quality Not Quantity
By shahed in forum Reseller HostingReplies: 0Last Post: 06-13-2002, 04:32 PM