View Poll Results: Which one will you take?
- Voters
- 21. You may not vote on this poll
-
Un-metered 10 mbps
12 57.14% -
4 Intel Celeron 1.3GHz
9 42.86%
Results 1 to 16 of 16
-
06-25-2002, 11:23 AM #1Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jun 2001
- Posts
- 431
RS Un-metered or 4 Celeron 1.3GHz?
Hi all,
I am thinking whether should I get Un-metered 10 mbps or 4 Celeron 1.3GHz server from RS.
Here is the bandwidth:
Un-metered 10 mbps : around 3200 GB ($399 per month)
4 Celeron 1.3GHz : 1600 GB ($369 per month)
If I get 4 Celeron 1.3GHz, I get more servers and more power. But I need to minor each server to make them the same.
The server will serve html page and image only.
If you were me, which one will you take?
-
06-25-2002, 11:31 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- PA, USA
- Posts
- 5,143
Since you will be serving only static pages, I would think one server is enough for you. Not sure what your plan is with 4 servers, but mirroring one server to each other and doing sophicated load balancing might not be easy. If I were you, I will probably get the unmetered option and, if I need a server backup, the $99 Celeron.
regards,
-daveFluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server
-
06-25-2002, 12:21 PM #3Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Chicago, Illinios
- Posts
- 391
I would say the unmetered 10mbps.
-
06-25-2002, 12:41 PM #4Linux Problems Solved.
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Posts
- 1,337
10MBPS, if you need that much bandwidth you are going to need that 10mbps port just for yourself. I don't think you would want to share a 10mbps port with 19 other people would you?
Ronny Fang
Linux Problems Solved. | Built for the Hosting Industry
Server Management. Node Management. Helpdesk Management.
( AcuNett, Est. 15 Years, RateLobby 5 Stars )
-
06-25-2002, 03:46 PM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Posts
- 3,085
Four servers, use DNS round-robin to split the bandwidth. Setting up a simply rsync between the servers would make it easy to keep them up-to-date with each other.
-
06-25-2002, 05:56 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 848
I like the idea of 4 servers because it adds a lot of redundancy in case one goes down (the one thing about RackShack is that support can be somewhat slow if there were a hardware problem for example so I would rather have 3/4 servers up and running for the 2-3 hours it might take to swap a drive).
Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting
-
06-25-2002, 05:57 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 848
I also like the Celerons because they're each on a 100 mpbs port rather than having the one server on a 10 mpbs port.
Dedicated Servers at Steadfast Networks and Softlayer : Virutal Hosting at FutureQuest : VPS at FutureHosting
-
06-25-2002, 06:16 PM #8Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Blackpool, England
- Posts
- 180
na unless ur doing something incredibly stupid resource wise you dont need 4 servers
then again 3200GB a month - what you going to host to shift that amount of data!!!
-
06-27-2002, 12:25 AM #9Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Chicago, Illinios
- Posts
- 391
Originally posted by terrastudios
na unless ur doing something incredibly stupid resource wise you dont need 4 servers
then again 3200GB a month - what you going to host to shift that amount of data!!!
But, if they really need that much then I say go with the 10mbps.
-
06-27-2002, 06:20 AM #10WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Posts
- 113
Well, if he is hosting files available for download, 3.2TB isn't too much to download...
Well, it still is a lot
That's like millions of visitors each dayLeon Mergen
leon@antrophia.com
http://www.antrophia.com/
-
06-27-2002, 10:05 AM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Location
- Amsterdam
- Posts
- 52
Originally posted by terrastudios
then again 3200GB a month - what you going to host to shift that amount of data!!!
The only other stuff that get's that much bandwidth is warez and mp3 which RS kills as quickly as they come.
I would just get the unmetered server because it's got more bandwidth and is easier to administer.
Jan Derk
-
06-27-2002, 04:44 PM #12Newbie
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Posts
- 10
Yep, that's a lotta bandwidth that only the big P could possibly push out. As for round robin, that won't provide you with redundancy (as far as my understanding goes) - not being intelligent, it will just push traffic in the direction of a dead server with no regard for performance - i.e. one server goes down, you lose 25% of traffic. So, you'll need a load balancing solution for real redundancy; only gig in town there (IMHO) is a $15K Radware device, but then I could be *really wrong* My guess is if you wanted super duper reliability anyway, you'd be shopping with Rackspace not the other guys...
Bottom line, go for the more powerful machine, less bandwidth, add servers... it isn't like they cost a lot from that particular provider.
Chttp://www.phpguardian.com: PHP Source Encryption, Obfuscation, Time & IP limiting
-
06-27-2002, 04:53 PM #13Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Dec 2001
- Location
- Blackpool, England
- Posts
- 180
Aye true - but i didnt think rackshack allowed porn - (ok thats my excuse to try and cover up the fact i didnt think bout porn!!!) - sorry if they do - we just never have followed rackshack much.
-
06-27-2002, 05:37 PM #14Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Location
- Amsterdam
- Posts
- 52
I believe the short version is: they allow anything that's legal.
JD
-
06-27-2002, 05:54 PM #15WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Posts
- 113
You mean that's legal in the USA, right?
Leon Mergen
leon@antrophia.com
http://www.antrophia.com/
-
06-27-2002, 06:05 PM #16Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Apr 2001
- Location
- Amsterdam
- Posts
- 52
Probably, yes.
JD