Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA, EU, UK, CA, AUS
    Posts
    1,804

    How Many VPS Per Server

    Just wanted opinion on performance degradation for putting VPSs on a single HDD.

    Basically we run dual HDD's with RAID 1 and install the base OS on one and the rest of the VPS on the other.

    With Dual Xeons and lots of RAM these aren't issues so the main issue is disk seek time etc.

    Any pointers on where to draw the line with the number of VPS / sites per physcial Sata 2 HDD?

    Cheers,

    Mark

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    407
    So you run two sets of HDD's with a RAID1. Is this correct? The OS on one RAID1 which consists of two HDD's and then you have another RAID1 with 2 more HDD's which is where you want to install the VPS's.

    Is this correct so your servers have at least 4 HDD's in this configuration?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA, EU, UK, CA, AUS
    Posts
    1,804
    Yeah that is right we run a woodcrest with four HDDs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,616
    If you are doing that I would say go RAID-10 it will be faster and just as reliable as 2xRAID-1 arrays. Also the cost of controllers will end up about the same as well
    Russ Foster - Industry Curmudgeon
    Freelance Sysadmin for Hire - email vaserv@gmail.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mandaluyong, Philippines
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultima Hosts
    Just wanted opinion on performance degradation for putting VPSs on a single HDD.

    Basically we run dual HDD's with RAID 1 and install the base OS on one and the rest of the VPS on the other.

    With Dual Xeons and lots of RAM these aren't issues so the main issue is disk seek time etc.

    Any pointers on where to draw the line with the number of VPS / sites per physcial Sata 2 HDD?

    Cheers,

    Mark
    That depends entirely on the virtualization platform in use, and type of backing for the virtual block devices.

    If you use file backed virtual block devices (such is very popular with Virtuozzo) otherwise known as loop devices or file images (or sparse files) any kernel is going to run into a bit of performance issues once you reach about 20. The same holds true with Xen and VMWare.

    If you use Xen / Physical backed block devices (partitions or LVM backed) , this is a non-issue.

    Best,
    -Tim

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA, EU, UK, CA, AUS
    Posts
    1,804
    Thanks. We are using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkertim

    If you use file backed virtual block devices (such is very popular with Virtuozzo)
    The only time I've seen that with VZ is when you secure /tmp within the VE's. Virtuozzo itself uses partioned backing scheme
    Russ Foster - Industry Curmudgeon
    Freelance Sysadmin for Hire - email vaserv@gmail.com

Posting Permissions

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