what's the min acceptable processor for a webserver
Hello I am wanting to buy a used PC to serve as a webserver from my home. I currently host low traffic websites but they are all PHP, ASP and ASP.NET..On all four websites I don't think I get any more than 100-200 visits a day but this will eventually increase to a point where I will move to VPS.. For now I want to stick with a server at home to reduce costs and learn about server management...
I am looking for a low-end server as I am not in a budget to spend hundreds on a new PC... I was looking at something like 500-800 Mhz but I am not sure if that processor would work well considering that it will be running windows 2003... I will start with probably 384 MB of ram... Do you guys think this is an acceptable setup for my needs?
for windows.... not sure.. theyre quite resource hogs...
if you are looking for low end, just get a server at lt... I'm sure you can afford 65 -80 for a server...
No, I already have the ADSL line 4000kbps/512kbps, I want to invest on a low-end server and then don't have to pay anything else while my websites remain with low-traffic.. Once things start to get big i will see how it does and then move to a vps maybe... a dedicated server is way beyond my needs right now. but thanks for the input..
I am thinking maybe a 500-800 Mhz processor with 384 megs of ram would do, but I am not sure.. I would like to ask the experts here..
ram is going to be more important than CPU depending on what you're doing. As stated, ASP loves eating both memory and CPU but PHP isn't much better. If we're talking static html or static frames with dynamic data here and there, a simple 1ghz machine w/ 256-512MB of RAM will cut it but don't expect to get a lot of growth or high performance out of it (as you said you weren't expecting).
For a true hosting server, I personally wouldn't use anything less than a Celery / Sempron 2.4Ghz w/ 1/2 gig of ram but that's just me and my view is a bit skewed.
I'd say closer to 800 Mhz, provided that you strip out all of the unnecessary services in Windows. You're definitely on the right track using windows 2003 in lieu of 2000, as 2003 has a much smaller memory footprint, and is less consumptuous on system resources.
As long as you can afford hardware at home, you'll find that a move to dedicated might not need to happen as quickly as you think. For example, there's nothing preventing you from using a shared or VPS account to host your images, downloads, or other things that require a lot of bandwidth to serve. Obviously HTML is small. Heck, you could even run Squid in a reverse-proxy configuration on a VPS to make the best use of your win2k3 server and your VPS at the same time.
The sky's the limit if you're willing to spend some time with it and get crafty.
Of course, all of this assumes that your time is worth zero, and saving money is paramount, much the same as the entire open source debate.
I'm not sure of the requirements of Windows 2003, but I know Windows 2000 will run just fine even on a Pentium 233 with 128MB of RAM. If you're looking to buy something (rather than take a free computer from someone), your best bang for buck would probably be a Pentium III of any speed.
I'm not sure of the requirements of Windows 2003, but I know Windows 2000 will run just fine even on a Pentium 233 with 128MB of RAM.
I guess you've never deployed ASP.NET on such a configuration eh?
I had a customer who's 95th percentile was less than 200 kbit/sec using a dual P3 800 Mhz. with 768 Megs of RAM on Windows 2000. His application was an adult site that relied exclusively on C# .NET code, with a MS SQL backend. From both his perspective and mine, Windows 2000 was horrible in that configuration. Everytime he'd ask me to reboot his machine, it would be a minimum of 10 to 12 minutes before IIS would begin to answer queries for his website. Windows 2003 was a dramatic improvement in overall speed using the same hardware.