Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : Quad Intel Xeon Servers? Possible?

[IMeanWebHosting]

www.totalchoicehosting.com says on their main page that they use quad xeon servers? The most processors I've seen in one server at liquidweb is 2. Is this really possible? Sorry for being a "newb". I'm not too bright with the hardware aspect of things.

If it IS possible, why doesn't liquidweb have them!?

[cywkevin]

They're probably using a dual xeon with hyperthreading which shows as 4 processors but is by no means a quad processor machine. Either that or they have deep pockets are really can afford the price tag on a quad xeon.

[IMeanWebHosting]

Gotcha. So it's possible, but not really "cost effective"

[David]

Bohica,

Exactly. While I'm sure they're amazing machines (last company I worked for had one - yay) I don't think they're really meant for a shared environment: cpu never seems to be a limiting factor.

With that said: Any additional performance you can get helps!

[CrazyTech]

Agreed, I've been in DCs with machines that had many times that amount of processors (these belonged to a large company hosting its sites and applications). However, you're probably not going to see these in the shared environment due to costs and the lack of need for so much CPU.

[IMeanWebHosting]

Gotcha, it just seemed like a waste to me, because it said they had quad xeons, but the highest memory they used was 2GB. My server is only a dual xeon (looks like quad, if you count hyperthreading) and I have 4 GB ram. It's also possible that I'm "overkilling" on ram, but it was a free promotional upgrade from 2 GB to 4 GB from liquid web.

[Kevin]

i love quad xeon servers, not a waste at all.

[twhnman]

The other possibility is they are using clustered servers, which basically has two servers in it, each have dual xeon. Even then these servers are $$$$$$$$$$$$$. If you are doing shared hosting, focus more on memory and disk drive space. Processors rarely get loaded up if you keeps the number of clients limited.

[solidated]

It is possible that they do offer Quad Xeons, and if they say it I take them at their word, but from my view they're not really cost-effective for a shared server. I can tell you that when we sized our data center, we found that going with Dual Xeons for shared servers was more than enough because most sites that opt for a shared solutions are not extremely high-volume and don't need all the extra CPU. We also don't overload our servers.

We do run several dedicated Quad Xeons for our larger clients (clients requiring more bandwidth, processing and carrying higher loads), but for very small businesses, we've found that they can be a bit cost-prohibitive. Just my 2 cents.

[Kevin]

cpu is important for shared hosting, its not just about ram and disk.

also, fewer more powerful servers can save money in the long run (short term as well), you are able to get better utilization out of your resources, you are usually able to keep licensing costs lower, and you have less nodes to administrate.

one problem is a lot of hosting "companies" are not in it for the long run (or are just have no capital because they are not serious) and cannot justify to actually make an investment into infrastructure, buying a 5000$ server is out of the question let alone a 50000$ server

[inteltechs]

Originally posted by pixelized
They're probably using a dual xeon with hyperthreading which shows as 4 processors but is by no means a quad processor machine. Either that or they have deep pockets are really can afford the price tag on a quad xeon.

I believe that that is what they use too ...They should have said hyperthreading.

Kevin

[solidated]

HP-Kevin,

Of course it’s important, and not just important, very important, but it’s critical to properly size your servers to the clients you service and the scope of your business. Obviously, there are benefits to larger, more powerful servers, but those same benefits can sometimes put the price of your offer beyond the consumer’s reach, especially if there website is primarily a brochure or marketing site that doesn’t directly contribute to their bottom line, but they do need to have an online presence. It’s not a bad idea to remember that the web is our business, but not necessarily our customers’. Our customers, most of the time, are business people that have their own bottom lines to consider and at least in our company, we don’t try to oversell our customers asking them to pay for hardware/software that they won’t take advantage of.

Regarding efficiency, I agree that managing fewer nodes is certainly better, but on licensing their really isn’t much difference in terms of cost since you really end up paying per-processor. Additionally, and as I mentioned in my previous post, we don’t overload our servers. This is true regarding the amount of sites that are on a servers as well as the types of services that each server runs. You know, there are many companies out there that run their web servers on the same machines as their mail servers and their database servers and anything else they might need because they figure “we just spent $50,000 on this machine and we expect it to do everything”. This is a big no-no, but a common one.

BTW, you’re right; there are many hosting “companies” that aren’t in it for the long-haul. The web hosting market is notorious for having fly-by-night operations that in the end leave their customers hanging or companies that are mismanaged into chapter 11. You’d be surprised how many clients we run across that have been burned elsewhere.