Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49
  1. #1

    Time to move from Softlayer: looking for advice

    Hi all,

    I've had dedicated servers with the same company for more than 12 years; RackShack...which kept getting acquired until it finally became SoftLayer.

    So, I started out with a relatively small company where the CEO ("Head Surfer") was on the forums with us geeks every day. Needless to say, lots has changed and now it is basically IBM. I have no complaints; I never use the support as my servers just work (knock on wood)...and when they don't, I fix them. So, the network infrastructure has been solid.

    Over the last decade, I've probably called support once a year...ignoring the time when there was an explosion at ThePlanet ;-) Yikes.

    So, really, I'm looking for a more-or-less unmanaged centos server at a company that is big enough that my clients won't question me...while at the same time, small enough that the staff is still hungry, engaged and excited about what they are doing.

    Does such a beast exist?

    Currently looking at a dedicated server with these specs: 2 x E5-2650 V3, 64 GB RAM, 2 x SSD Software RAID 1, 1 x SATA backup drive (1 TB), Centos 7 - 64bit, 3 IP addresses, 5 TB Outbound Bandwidth (+100 Uplink Port). Would be great if the hardware wasn't tired.

    I'm not looking for the cheapest; I'm more interested in a long-term relationship with a US-based company that has its infrastucture together and a good developer-friendly culture. I really liked Rackshack back in the day. Location of hosting facility in US. It is important that the company be "impressive" enough for my clients as they can be snotty.

    I have no complaints with Softlayer, and I could stay there. But, it just feels like time for a change.

    What do you guys think about Liquid Web? Looks like it got acquired...so I might have missed the good times there?

    Who would you suggest?

    Thank you,
    Kitsuma

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,496

    Time to move from Softlayer: looking for advice

    LiquidWeb hasn't been acquired - we are using them ourselves and they are good. A few others you can consider are HostDime and QuadraNET, we use both of them too. All three providers I mentioned have very solid network and responsive support.
    HostWithLove.com - World Class Hosting Personalized - 9 Locations Across 4 Continents
    Fully Managed Shared, Reseller, Semi-Dedicated and Dedicated Servers
    cPanel/WHM | CloudLinux | JetBackup | LiteSpeed | MariaDB | SpamExperts Outbound Filtering
    Locations: Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, Quebec, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London, Singapore and Sydney

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,121
    I'd recommend looking at Limestone Network, they have the dual E5-26XX processor that you want along with very flexible hardware customization, and they are a great company to have a long-term relationship with that care about your success. If you are flexible with your hardware, Psychz Networks has E5-1650v3's which are very good also, but obviously much lower core count so I assume it would be pointless for your needs. Both have service in Dallas, TX, Limestone is solely in Dallas for dedicated servers.

    Good luck.
    ExtraVM - DDoS Protected NVMe VPS, Website Hosting, & Game Servers
    Dallas, TX | Miami, FL | Los Angeles, CA | Piscataway, NJ | Amsterdam, NL | Singapore | Tokyo, JP

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    968
    In terms of reliability and the ability to adapt to enterprise needs, SoftLayer is virtually the best I have seen so why break something that isn't broken? I personally spoken for and against SoftLayer but at the end of the day they can and do get the job done well and far better than others. The acquisition of SoftLayer by IBM was unsettling at first but we have found the advantage via IBM leveraged high speed big data delivery software (this software is also used by Pixar).

    Should you choose to move:
    • LiquidWeb - Managed, Fairly Reliable, Inexpensive, WHT is Hosted Here, Limited DCs
    • SingleHop - This company popped up on our radar more recently but seem to be reputable and reliable; Limited DC footprint again
    • HostDime - We worked with them in 2005 when they were a much smaller company and had problems with their hardware virtually every single day but they have improved significantly from my understanding. They are also managed, the staff is friendly from what I recall, but linited to Florida. They say they have an LA datacenter but I have never seen offerings at that location
    • Hivelocity - We have never used them but they tout their efficency amd live feeds. Limited to Florida.
    Cloud Mosaic by NortheBridge
    High Performance Global Cloud | Contact Us: hello@northebridge.com
    Apps & Stacks: WordPress | Magento | Drupal | Ghost | Redmine | LAMP
    Node.js | Gitlab | MEAN | Nginx | Django | cPanel | Plesk | Windows & Linux

  5. #5
    As it does not seem like you are in a hurry to move, I might wait for the E5-2650v4 as it takes you to 12 Cores for the same price. Based on what I am seeing from vendors who have already started putting up pricing on these CPUs they should be ready in the next 30-60 days. It also appears that Supermicro has the BIOS update ready for these new CPUs.

    So if you can wait, I would! Why not get a free increase in performance at the same cost?
    Tony Holloway
    Delivering Custom Hosting Solutions Since January 2004
    madRooster.com
    Fun Name ... Serious Solutions

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    73
    I personally think Steadfast fits exactly that description. Haven't used them myself but for someone who has the budget for Softlayer, they are worth it from what I heard.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    /root
    Posts
    23,991
    Quote Originally Posted by smallcrush View Post
    I personally think Steadfast fits exactly that description. Haven't used them myself but for someone who has the budget for Softlayer, they are worth it from what I heard.
    The best recommendation or suggestion is from someone that already used them. People can say the same and yet rely only on what they are seeing on the net without any knowledge what is happening inside.

    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    325
    Have you already decided to use IBM, why only IBM?
    ☁ Talk with me about your Cloud projects here directly: drift.me/tomaspeleckis
    ☁ Bare Metal Cloud & Dedicated Servers are ready! Pay with BTC, CC, PayPal
    ☁ Fully automated deployment, hourly billing, resource management, Elastic IPs, SSH keys etc.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    3,956
    Why are you looking to move from Softlayer though? If everything is working, why mess with it? If I were you, I'd stay there since you can't really get any more brand recognition than IBM.

    Perhaps consider Peer1, they are not cheap but are very good overall.
    AYKsolutions.com - High Bandwidth Specialists - 10Gbps/20Gbps+ Unmetered & DDOS Protected
    Over 20+ Global Locations - Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo), Mexico, Brazil, India, Australia, US, CA, EU - Bare Metal and Virtual Cloud. All Managed.
    We are Professional. Painless. Polite.

  10. #10
    Codero and Hosting.com come to mind but why move if things are not bad???????
    http://www.QuoteColo.com - Colocation, Miner Hosting, Dedicated and Cloud Hosting Quotes

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ashburn VA, San Diego CA
    Posts
    4,615
    Quote Originally Posted by quotecolo View Post
    Codero and Hosting.com come to mind but why move if things are not bad???????
    My guess is price - having been with them so long, perhaps looking to upgrade a 'legacy' server and trying not to break the bank? SL's higher-end offerings get pricey real quick. That along with all the corporate baggage IBM brings to the table (blocking SMTP and various countries) wouldn't be surprising people are starting to look for alternatives.
    Fast Serv Networks, LLC | AS29889 | DDOS Protected | Managed Cloud, Streaming, Dedicated Servers, Colo by-the-U
    Since 2003 - Ashburn VA + San Diego CA Datacenters

  12. #12
    Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm taking a look at all the suggested companies!

    I had hoped everyone would say "OMG, you are still with Softlayer?! HAHAHAHA! You idiot! Wow, things are so much better out here in the real world."

    So, I'm hearing the opposite: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    That sunk in overnight...and here's what popped out of my head this morning...the truth is...


    Quote Originally Posted by FastServ View Post
    My guess is price - having been with them so long, perhaps looking to upgrade a 'legacy' server and trying not to break the bank? SL's higher-end offerings get pricey real quick. That along with all the corporate baggage IBM brings to the table (blocking SMTP and various countries) wouldn't be surprising people are starting to look for alternatives.
    So, I lied earlier...$$ does matter...especially since I pretty much manage the servers myself.

    I am pricing things out with Softlayer right now. I'll followup here with what I learn, but I'm pretty sure FastServe is right: $$$$$

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_A View Post
    I'd recommend looking at Limestone Network, they have the dual E5-26XX processor that you want along with very flexible hardware customization, and they are a great company to have a long-term relationship with that care about your success.
    Thanks for the recommendation.

    Do you have a specific location in mind?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by madRoosterTony View Post
    As it does not seem like you are in a hurry to move, I might wait for the E5-2650v4 as it takes you to 12 Cores for the same price. Based on what I am seeing from vendors who have already started putting up pricing on these CPUs they should be ready in the next 30-60 days. It also appears that Supermicro has the BIOS update ready for these new CPUs.

    So if you can wait, I would! Why not get a free increase in performance at the same cost?

    And this! Thanks for this tip! Right, I'm in no hurry; in fact, I have to wait until April to start migrating.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by sclaeys View Post
    Thanks for the recommendation.

    Do you have a specific location in mind?
    Currently in Dallas. However,the bulk of our traffic is from the Northeast & Midwest.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    538
    Do you have a specific recommendation of preference? The dual E5-26XX can easily be build up to your requirements. I'd suggest reaching out to providers directly.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    So, I lied earlier...$$ does matter...especially since I pretty much manage the servers myself.
    I am pricing things out with Softlayer right now. I'll followup here with what I learn, but I'm pretty sure FastServe is right: $$$$$
    So cost is truly a factor.

    Have you had some analyzing exactly what you are using the server for and our your hardware specifications exactly what you need? I know you have been involved with the industry for awhile and no dis-respect to your knowledge, but often its noted that people just glance at the hardware available and go "Yes, that is what I need!", only to find out they have way over or under purchased based on the current usage.

    Every new cycle of hardware makes improvements in speed, I/O, etc. For example, an E5-2640 (3.3GHz 8Core) and the E5-2630 v3 (3.0Ghz 6 Core) benchmark exactly the same, even though the newer CPU has less cores and clock speed. So my point is, if your current server is meeting all your hardware needs, it might make sense to share what you are currently on and besides money any other needs that you are looking to leave / upgrade and let the community help make suggestions, that could save you some money based on the new hardware coming available.
    Tony Holloway
    Delivering Custom Hosting Solutions Since January 2004
    madRooster.com
    Fun Name ... Serious Solutions

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by madRoosterTony View Post
    So cost is truly a factor.
    I'm ok with paying "more" as long as I understand what I'm getting for "more". From reading through this feedback (and I found a thread where Northbridge went through the same process), it sounds like the stability we're experiencing is not exactly normal....in other words, worth the $$.

    Quote Originally Posted by madRoosterTony View Post
    Have you had some analyzing exactly what you are using the server for and our your hardware specifications exactly what you need?....So my point is, if your current server is meeting all your hardware needs, it might make sense to share what you are currently on and besides money any other needs that you are looking to leave / upgrade and let the community help make suggestions, that could save you some money based on the new hardware coming available.
    I think you are on to something there. I'll post some details in a bit; thanks for offering to help out :-D

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,957
    Quote Originally Posted by HostWithLove_Cody View Post
    LiquidWeb hasn't been acquired - we are using them ourselves and they are good. A few others you can consider are HostDime and QuadraNET, we use both of them too. All three providers I mentioned have very solid network and responsive support.
    I want to point out that this actually isn't accurate. LiquidWeb HAS been acquired. They were acquired by the private equity firm, Madison Dearborn Partners (Chicago based) about 9 months ago. They may have said it was an investment, but from everything I've seen it was a majority sale and the Madison Dearborn put in their own management team.

    I'm certainly not saying this is a bad thing, just laying out the facts. I have nothing bad at all to say about LiquidWeb or Madison Dearborn.
    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

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,297
    OMG, you are still with Softlayer?! HAHAHAHA! You idiot! Wow, things are so much better out here in the real world.

    Sorry, just had to!

    I think the thread has really summarized a lot of the facts though. "If it ain't broke don't fix it." That said if the company shifts its target audience, increases its prices, and continues to care less about the little guys... In a sense that is broken, to you, isn't it? You deserve to work with a company that WANTS your business and will deliver exactly what you need.

    As far as your initial post, here are my comments. This is really where you get into the your mileage may vary.


    2 x E5-2650 V3, 64 GB RAM, 2 x SSD Software RAID 1, 1 x SATA backup drive (1 TB), Centos 7 - 64bit, 3 IP addresses, 5 TB Outbound Bandwidth (+100 Uplink Port). Would be great if the hardware wasn't tired.
    Obviously the E5-2650 V3 with DDR4 RAM won't be tired. The SSD's could be tired, the SATA drive could be tired.

    What size SSD drives are you looking for?

    I would make sure that with a new Dual E5 server you are getting newer high quality SSD drives. They will last longer and give you better performance.

    Another thing I would suggest, depending on how you are doing your backups. Make sure you don't rely only on that 1 x SATA Backup Drive in your server. I am a huge fan of local to the server backup drives. Gives you very high speed recovery of files. What it doesn't do is protect against human error (on your part, or the providers), loss or damage to a server, etc. I cannot stress this enough. Please replicate those backups at least off-site and if possible off-server within the same data center. The methodology behind that is quickly backup the server to the SSD, then replicate that off-server within the data center so that if something should happen to your server you can quickly recover your files. Additionally replicate that off-site if something should ever happen to the data center. The off-server and off-site backups should PULL the backups off your server. So that if someone was able to compromise your server and get into it they couldn't rm -rf /backup and wipe you clean. They wouldn't have any idea how to get into your backups.

    Good luck with your search, if you have any questions about the above, or anything else I'll do my best to try and answer for you.

    Thanks much!
    REDUNDANT.COMEquinix Data Centers Performance Optimized Network
    Managed & Unmanaged
    • Servers • Colocation • Cloud • VEEAM
    sales@redundant.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by smallcrush View Post
    I personally think Steadfast fits exactly that description. Haven't used them myself but for someone who has the budget for Softlayer, they are worth it from what I heard.
    +1 for steadfast, us company, smaller compared to softlayer, and their owner is active on wht forum.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    265

    *

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Over the last decade, I've probably called support once a year...ignoring the time when there was an explosion at ThePlanet ;-) Yikes.
    Everyone remembers that incident quite well!

    We've been (and still are) with ServerMatrix -> ThePlanet -> SoftLayer -> IBM, as well as many other providers. If you want comparable quality, flexibility, better pricing and more personal service have a look at Limestone Networks - you won't be disappointed.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Hi all,

    I've had dedicated servers with the same company for more than 12 years; RackShack...which kept getting acquired until it finally became SoftLayer.

    So, I started out with a relatively small company where the CEO ("Head Surfer") was on the forums with us geeks every day. Needless to say, lots has changed and now it is basically IBM. I have no complaints; I never use the support as my servers just work (knock on wood)...and when they don't, I fix them. So, the network infrastructure has been solid.

    Over the last decade, I've probably called support once a year...ignoring the time when there was an explosion at ThePlanet ;-) Yikes.

    So, really, I'm looking for a more-or-less unmanaged centos server at a company that is big enough that my clients won't question me...while at the same time, small enough that the staff is still hungry, engaged and excited about what they are doing.

    Does such a beast exist?

    Currently looking at a dedicated server with these specs: 2 x E5-2650 V3, 64 GB RAM, 2 x SSD Software RAID 1, 1 x SATA backup drive (1 TB), Centos 7 - 64bit, 3 IP addresses, 5 TB Outbound Bandwidth (+100 Uplink Port). Would be great if the hardware wasn't tired.

    I'm not looking for the cheapest; I'm more interested in a long-term relationship with a US-based company that has its infrastucture together and a good developer-friendly culture. I really liked Rackshack back in the day. Location of hosting facility in US. It is important that the company be "impressive" enough for my clients as they can be snotty.

    I have no complaints with Softlayer, and I could stay there. But, it just feels like time for a change.

    What do you guys think about Liquid Web? Looks like it got acquired...so I might have missed the good times there?

    Who would you suggest?

    Thank you,
    Kitsuma

    Thanks for the memory lane stroll! I worked at ev1servers back in the day!
    █ Stress Free Host - StressFreeHost.Com
    █ Shared Cloud Hosting | Cheapest Linux VPS | Domain Names
    █ 99.9% Uptime | 100% Customer Satisfaction

  24. #24
    Back to RedRooster's earlier point: yes, I've been in the industry a long-ass time, but that doesn't mean I know what I'm doing. I'm not a hosting specialist....more of a know-a-little-about-alot-get-r-done type. I wish I could just do hosting all day, actually.

    So here's what we have now for this server at Softlayer (since 2014):

    2 x E5-2620-HexCore (2GHz), supermicro X9DRI-LN4F+ motherboard, 16 GB RAM, Centos 5.11 (!), 2 x 300GB Seagate Cheetah 7200 RPM in Raid 1, 3000 GB network/month, 3 IPs.

    To Alec's point re backups; I do nightly backups offsite (multiple locations)...so I basically have a snapshot for every day/week/month for a good while back. The thought was to also do some local backups with that extra SATA disk on the new server. Yes, I'm concerned about hardware failure, but I'm more concerned about the server being compromised. Losing a day's data is not biggy. Having all my backups deleted is a disaster.
    I recently put in place hourly offsite backups of some of the more important files that change rapidly throughout the day.

    Firewall: I use APF and BFD rather than a hardware firewall....and I'm pretty hands-on watching things. We did have some DDOS problems last year...but...and you are gonna laugh at this...it turned out to be our own software out in the field going rogue on us ;-)

    Now, I'm going to guess the community will say this (quote of MadRooster from another thread):

    It still amazes me that people reach this point and try to make one server do it all. Your money could be much better spent on setting up a small cluster, moving MySQL to its own server(s) and then let the Web Server(s) handle the other part of the load. While more complex to setup, it provides you a great advantages over trying to force a single server to do everything.

    1. Allows you to grow in the future by adding simply adding more servers to the cluster. No having to try to migrate data, etc
    2. At a point you start to add a degree of High Availability, so even if one server goes down, your website might slow, but it does not go down.

    I would at least consider maybe a few servers and see how things price out.
    So, yea...maybe that is the way to go. I do like the simplicity of one server though...so anyway...

    This server hosts several custom applications / web sites serviced by mysql databases that connect to custom software in the field. The software in the field is feeding data to the server and is being represented in realtime on the various web/mobile apps for the general public.

    The databases are written to by maybe 100-300 clients in the field...but read by many. So, there are publishers of data and then there's the general public watching the data. So, not many writers...many readers. We've tried to architect things so there are not lock issues with our mysql databases, and it's been working well for 15 years.

    The server we have performs fine. The load stays low. The bottleneck is actually mysql; we have a handful of inefficient queries that we are now working on. These queries haven't been a problem for years...but we're now getting enough traffic and historical data that they need attention. We know where they are and most were trivial to fix. I think we'll get the biggest improvement from that alone. But, you know the old saying in our field... "functionality first, optimization second" (Donald Knuth?)...that's been our approach. Actually, "$$ first, optimization second" to be more precise. I know...15 years is a long time to put optimization off.

    Since Mysql / IO seems to be the bottleneck (and it's really not that big of a problem yet)....we think the move from SATA drives to SSD will help.

    Then there's RAM...I certainly could allocate more RAM out to apache and mysql if I had it...and it appears to be pretty cheap, so why not goto 32 GB or even 64 GB. I've even thought about putting some of the read-only mysql tables in-core. You know...fun things to do on a rainy day.

    I need to upgrade the OS from Centos 5.11 to 6.x or 7.x (any suggestions there)?

    And...we're on Mysql 5.1.58 (blush). So, obviously...there's an upgrade that needs to happen there. With that upgrade, we'll turn our attention to optimizing our use of Mysql with regards to locks, multiple threads, etc. Our use of mysql does not take full advantage of the multiple cores available.
    I've been doing some reading on that...and it is non-trivial.

    We've had this current server for 4 years. So, that's another reason we think we should upgrade; is 4 years tired?

    The downside of moving and staying at Softlayer is their new 500GB limit on network traffic; if we upgrade the current platform, I suspect we would grandfather in our 3000 GB/month. We are just now inching above the 500 GB threshold now; and I suspect thing will grow 20% next year. So, that's a possibility...just upgrade the current server with more RAM and SSD.

    Other things I've considered during is to move to MariaDB. And then, there's the idea of breaking out mysql onto a dedicated server. I do like the simplicity of the one-server setup, but I'm all ears! now's the time...

    Sorry that was long...but RedRooster offered ;-)

    I learned a long time ago, the best way to debug a program is to sit in a corner and explain the problem to a wall. I think this exercise has already helped me: seems like I could add a database server cheaply and keep the existing server for apache.

    Thanks for reading all this and for your suggestions.

  25. #25
    I am going to breakup your post and combine some thoughts just to keep my thought train more on track

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Back to RedRooster's earlier point: yes, I've been in the industry a long-ass time, but that doesn't mean I know what I'm doing. I'm not a hosting specialist....more of a know-a-little-about-alot-get-r-done type. I wish I could just do hosting all day, actually.
    Do not be ashamed of this, many developers do not have time or need to keep up with changes in hardware. A good hosting company will understand this and make sure they fully understand your project and make recommendations if you will let them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    So here's what we have now for this server at Softlayer (since 2014):

    2 x E5-2620-HexCore (2GHz), supermicro X9DRI-LN4F+ motherboard, 16 GB RAM, Centos 5.11 (!), 2 x 300GB Seagate Cheetah 7200 RPM in Raid 1, 3000 GB network/month, 3 IPs.

    We've had this current server for 4 years. So, that's another reason we think we should upgrade; is 4 years tired?

    Then there's RAM...I certainly could allocate more RAM out to apache and mysql if I had it...and it appears to be pretty cheap, so why not goto 32 GB or even 64 GB. I've even thought about putting some of the read-only mysql tables in-core. You know...fun things to do on a rainy day.
    I may be mis-speaking speaking for the community, but in my personal opinion, you are getting towards the end of the value of that server. As the average life span of a server from your mainstream providers is around 5 years. From there the servers either normally get sold off or transferred to a discount product line. So at 4 years, I would say its time for a upgrade.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    To Alec's point re backups; I do nightly backups offsite (multiple locations)...so I basically have a snapshot for every day/week/month for a good while back. The thought was to also do some local backups with that extra SATA disk on the new server. Yes, I'm concerned about hardware failure, but I'm more concerned about the server being compromised. Losing a day's data is not biggy. Having all my backups deleted is a disaster.
    I recently put in place hourly offsite backups of some of the more important files that change rapidly throughout the day.
    You can never have too many backups. On server backups are a great way to speed up the restore process if ever needed, as with offsite backups, you have the delay of transfering the files over the network, which at times can cause headaches for everyone involved, due to the hurry and wait principal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Firewall: I use APF and BFD rather than a hardware firewall....and I'm pretty hands-on watching things. We did have some DDOS problems last year...but...and you are gonna laugh at this...it turned out to be our own software out in the field going rogue on us ;-)
    When properly configured APF / BFD can provide great protection. You can even add DDOS Deflate to add basic DDOS protection. While using software firewall does take away some of your server resources, this combination has never caused any major problems that I know of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    I need to upgrade the OS from Centos 5.11 to 6.x or 7.x (any suggestions there)?

    And...we're on Mysql 5.1.58 (blush). So, obviously...there's an upgrade that needs to happen there. With that upgrade, we'll turn our attention to optimizing our use of Mysql with regards to locks, multiple threads, etc. Our use of mysql does not take full advantage of the multiple cores available.
    I've been doing some reading on that...and it is non-trivial.

    Other things I've considered during is to move to MariaDB.
    CentOS 6.x is rock solid. 7.x has some major performance improvements. There are still a few little tweaks that can be annoying with CentOS 7.x but nothing that cant be easily fixed. I would recommend Centos 7.x unless there is something that is locking you into 6.x

    As far as MySQL, any upgrade you do is going to require some tweaking on your part, due to changes in MySQL. These should all be a non-issue for you, but something that you need to plan for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    So, yea...maybe that is the way to go. I do like the simplicity of one server though...so anyway...

    This server hosts several custom applications / web sites serviced by mysql databases that connect to custom software in the field. The software in the field is feeding data to the server and is being represented in realtime on the various web/mobile apps for the general public.

    The databases are written to by maybe 100-300 clients in the field...but read by many. So, there are publishers of data and then there's the general public watching the data. So, not many writers...many readers. We've tried to architect things so there are not lock issues with our mysql databases, and it's been working well for 15 years.

    The server we have performs fine. The load stays low. The bottleneck is actually mysql; we have a handful of inefficient queries that we are now working on. These queries haven't been a problem for years...but we're now getting enough traffic and historical data that they need attention. We know where they are and most were trivial to fix. I think we'll get the biggest improvement from that alone. But, you know the old saying in our field... "functionality first, optimization second" (Donald Knuth?)...that's been our approach. Actually, "$$ first, optimization second" to be more precise. I know...15 years is a long time to put optimization off.

    And then, there's the idea of breaking out mysql onto a dedicated server. I do like the simplicity of the one-server setup, but I'm all ears! now's the time...

    I learned a long time ago, the best way to debug a program is to sit in a corner and explain the problem to a wall. I think this exercise has already helped me: seems like I could add a database server cheaply and keep the existing server for apache.
    There are many advantages of dividing the servers comes down to a few things, some of which I mentioned in the other thread, but will expand a little more here since you bring it up.

    1. The flexibility to grow in the future and quickly without full migration. Even if your application is not sky rocketing in growth, what happens in say 6 months, you sign on a huge client that double your server load? With pre-planning of a cluster setup, you now can add servers to the cluster very easily and as needed. Maybe the new client means you only need MySQL expansion as the web server side can handle the load or visa versa. A very common setup is 3 Web Servers / 2 Database Servers

    2. High Availability - Once you add a second server to any of the services, that service now has a high availability aspect to it. Maybe the new client isnt going to increase the load, but they need high availability and you can charge extra for it. With the servers/services divided out, it makes it a lot easier to manage as a cluster

    3. Security - Since you mentioned this before. Having your database on its own server, provides an extra layer of security to it, as you are able to lock it down to private network access only. While not very common, there have been known security exploits that give a remote user the ability to dump files, making it very easy to dump a database file and read it later. While security through obscurity should never be a sole security practice, it never hurts as an extra layer

    4. Backups - As I mentioned before you can never have enough backups, But with proper planning you can add an additional backup to the mix very easily, by just making sure there is enough disk space in the mix. Then not only to you have on-server backups, you can have server to server backups. i.e. Web Server backs up to MySQL Server, MySQL server backs up to the Web Server. Combine that with offsite backups and you not start to reach a level of euphoria to the backup gods.

    If you want to keep the existing server and break out the database. You will need to do this at Softlayer due to the Bandwidth / latency issues you will experience otherwise. You will also need to talk to them about making sure they can provide you with a private network to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Since Mysql / IO seems to be the bottleneck (and it's really not that big of a problem yet)....we think the move from SATA drives to SSD will help.
    Moving to SSD, modern DDR4 Ram and the newer CPUs will all help with your MySQL / IO issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitsuma View Post
    Sorry that was long...but RedRooster offered ;-)
    Thanks for reading all this and for your suggestions.
    We are mad, not Red .... but all is good. :-)

    Now to what should you do as far as hardware. I have seen nothing that says you need the extra power of the E5-2650 in a new server. The one thing to remember though is the newer E5-26x0v4 CPUs are dropping in GHz speed, but this is due to them being more efficient in their processing power. But even saying that, if you want to stay all in one server, I would look at the E5-2640v4. This will give you a 10 Core CPU @ 2.4GHz. With ram being retaliative cheap these days, going with 64GB of ram is not a bad idea.

    As far as breaking out into two boxes. The new E3-12x0V5 would be great option as even the E3-1230v5 outperforms the existing CPU. I would lean towards an E3-1240V5 with 32GB of RAM for the Web Server and and an E3-1270V5 with 64GB of ram for the Database Server, but I think that needs to be discussed a little more before locking those in.

    Couple other sidenotes, that has not been brought up that can help with speed of the server, but also with reliability.

    1. Add a small SSD for the OS / Applications (Apache / MySQL / etc) to run on. The advantage here is it breaks out the core of the system to its own drive which can help when it comes to a potential drive failure. i.e. the data drive can die and then only data has to be restore, the server does not have to be reloaded. As well, this reduces the writes to the OS drive, which increases the lifespan of the SSD Setup. Lastly with modern SSD drives and proper monitoring, they typically will tell you they are going die long before they do, so it can make life much simpler.

    2. If you want to use Software RAID, look at ZFS over standard Linux Software RAID. Performance and reliability have shown to be much better.


    Now, that I am done typing alot.... fire away with questions
    Tony Holloway
    Delivering Custom Hosting Solutions Since January 2004
    madRooster.com
    Fun Name ... Serious Solutions

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When is it time to move from shared hosting?
    By dhsx in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 11:03 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 07:52 PM
  3. Time to move from Hostgator
    By desk2web in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-11-2006, 09:27 AM
  4. Moving to a dedicated server...looking for advice
    By emills01 in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 04:05 AM
  5. When is it time to move from a reseller account to your owned dedicated server?
    By WHRKit in forum Running a Web Hosting Business Tutorials
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2004, 11:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •