hosted by liquidweb


Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : Dual Server - What hardware?
Reply

Forum Jump

Dual Server - What hardware?

Reply Post New Thread In Dedicated Server Subscription
 
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-02-2007, 05:33 PM
MarkPW MarkPW is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 32
Question

Dual Server - What hardware?


I have one site on my server, a large portal (forum + download system) that receives over 30,000 visitors per day and 1,100 users online at peak (900 avg) - based on a 15 minute time-out.

The site is fairly database intensive (although I do cache many queries) and makes frequent use of the audio/video processors SoX and FFMPEG on files up to 7MB in size.

I've just upgraded from a Xeon "Dempsey" 3.0Ghz to the following, but it hasn't made much difference:

Dual Core Dual Processor Woodcrest 5130
2 x 320GB SATA, Hardware RAID 1
CentOS 4.5 32 bit
Apache/1.3.37
MySQL 4.1.21 (ISAM)

I've done all the MySQL and Apache optimisation I can, so it seems I now need two servers. My question is, what kind of servers would be suitable bearing in mind I'm trying to keep my budget to a minimum?

Any help would be appreciated.



Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-02-2007, 06:02 PM
WebNX WebNX is offline
Aspiring Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 407
Your I/O on the current setup is pretty sad for a DB/Web server. What does TOP show WA time to be? Typical budget setup we have used in the past with great success is a dual cpu dual core (dual quad for the people that need more speed) for the Webserver, and a dual single core with 8 drive SCSI setup for the DB.

But in your case you might only need to get some faster drives, and maybe some more RAM (you didn't list how much your using).

__________________
Daniel Pautz - WebNX, Inc. dan >< WebNX.com
WebNX.com Enterprise Hosting Solutions Los Angeles and Manhattan NewYork based Servers
High end Dedicated Servers at reasonable prices and a Premium network with 9x providers route optimized with the Noction IRP


  #3  
Old 12-02-2007, 06:21 PM
Harzem Harzem is offline
Community Liaison
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 3,183
Another vote for harddisk increase. You are merely using a single SATA for such a large website. RAID-1 is only mirroring, it doesn't help read times.

Try upgrading your harrdisk to 4x SA-SCSI drives on RAID-10.

And of course, RAM is another factor.

Usually for such forums, the processors are the least important factors. RAM and haddisk speeds are the first problems you will face.

Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 12-02-2007, 11:10 PM
mehboobashraf mehboobashraf is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 901
Try increasing your RAM, and also upgrade to 4x SCSI that should help!

  #5  
Old 12-05-2007, 12:38 PM
MarkPW MarkPW is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 32
Unhappy

I'm using 4GB RAM. Here's a recent top (taken just prior to peak):

Quote:
top - 16:17:34 up 6 days, 23:12, 1 user, load average: 13.79, 8.61, 6.41
Tasks: 336 total, 13 running, 322 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
Cpu(s): 62.8% us, 6.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 29.0% id, 1.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 1.0% si
Mem: 4137244k total, 3735152k used, 402092k free, 147968k buffers
Swap: 4096532k total, 144k used, 4096388k free, 1285996k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
31115 nobody 16 0 20744 10m 3256 S 13 0.3 0:02.90 httpd
5691 mysql 10 -5 674m 383m 2852 S 12 9.5 2616:18 mysqld
25900 nobody 15 0 26264 16m 3700 S 12 0.4 0:15.63 httpd
31027 nobody 15 0 22564 11m 3348 R 10 0.3 0:03.48 httpd
29688 nobody 15 0 20772 9m 2844 S 9 0.2 0:05.71 httpd
5786 nobody 15 0 26652 16m 3944 S 8 0.4 10:09.76 httpd
17876 nobody 16 0 27384 17m 3940 S 8 0.4 4:49.38 httpd
28582 nobody 15 0 26800 17m 3980 R 8 0.4 21:39.70 httpd
3591 nobody 15 0 25120 15m 4096 S 7 0.4 3:06.17 httpd
19567 nobody 15 0 25164 15m 3640 S 7 0.4 0:32.80 httpd
25892 nobody 16 0 24808 14m 3448 S 7 0.4 0:19.62 httpd
28570 nobody 15 0 27280 17m 4136 S 7 0.4 22:59.16 httpd
28579 nobody 15 0 24840 15m 4256 S 7 0.4 24:00.57 httpd
28590 nobody 16 0 25384 15m 4292 S 7 0.4 23:41.78 httpd
29312 nobody 15 0 25388 15m 4248 S 7 0.4 23:16.74 httpd
31034 nobody 16 0 24664 14m 3224 S 7 0.3 0:02.32 httpd
31051 nobody 15 0 19300 9124 3240 S 7 0.2 0:03.85 httpd
32038 nobody 16 0 18944 8312 2772 S 7 0.2 0:00.13 httpd
19565 nobody 15 0 20896 10m 3432 S 6 0.3 0:40.81 httpd
25691 nobody 16 0 26292 16m 3388 S 6 0.4 0:24.34 httpd
26580 nobody 15 0 24696 14m 3380 S 6 0.4 0:17.85 httpd
28577 nobody 15 0 26908 17m 4152 S 6 0.4 24:11.41 httpd
28595 nobody 16 0 26808 17m 4188 S 6 0.4 21:33.46 httpd
28919 nobody 16 0 25172 15m 3944 S 6 0.4 6:27.77 httpd
28927 nobody 15 0 28036 17m 3264 S 6 0.4 0:09.34 httpd
31809 nobody 16 0 19176 8592 2816 S 6 0.2 0:01.78 httpd
32019 nobody 15 0 19176 8580 2808 S 6 0.2 0:00.53 httpd
32040 nobody 19 0 18948 8292 2760 S 6 0.2 0:00.06 httpd
31224 nobody 15 0 19176 8728 2952 S 5 0.2 0:01.46 httpd
32020 nobody 16 0 21528 10m 2804 R 5 0.3 0:00.40 httpd
14202 nobody 15 0 25216 15m 3448 S 4 0.4 0:46.62 httpd
19566 nobody 15 0 24800 14m 3440 R 4 0.4 0:26.80 httpd
23696 nobody 15 0 26628 17m 4136 S 4 0.4 3:13.42 httpd
26503 nobody 15 0 20844 10m 3420 S 4 0.3 0:17.88 httpd
29445 nobody 15 0 26244 15m 3368 S 4 0.4 0:06.78 httpd
27983 nobody 15 0 24696 14m 3292 S 3 0.4 0:10.85 httpd
540 nobody 16 0 26844 17m 4168 S 2 0.4 18:45.47 httpd
12726 nobody 15 0 24752 15m 4016 S 2 0.4 0:51.29 httpd
12727 nobody 15 0 26612 16m 3396 S 2 0.4 0:51.67 httpd
23000 nobody 15 0 25212 15m 4132 S 2 0.4 6:52.78 httpd
23168 nobody 15 0 26880 17m 4148 S 2 0.4 4:35.30 httpd
26048 nobody 15 0 20860 10m 3252 R 2 0.3 0:18.80 httpd
28580 nobody 15 0 25376 15m 4036 R 2 0.4 22:47.74 httpd
28912 nobody 15 0 26868 17m 4124 S 2 0.4 6:11.49 httpd
30418 nobody 15 0 20828 10m 3388 S 2 0.3 0:05.26 httpd
31075 nobody 15 0 19232 9056 3240 S 2 0.2 0:02.61 httpd
31120 nobody 15 0 24696 13m 2836 S 2 0.3 0:02.66 httpd
31324 nobody 15 0 22304 10m 2824 R 2 0.3 0:02.17 httpd
32014 nobody 15 0 18940 8332 2796 S 2 0.2 0:00.32 httpd
2836 nobody 15 0 26988 17m 3960 S 1 0.4 4:01.39 httpd
8739 nobody 15 0 25188 15m 3904 S 1 0.4 3:21.13 httpd
15373 nobody 15 0 25400 15m 3912 S 1 0.4 2:08.33 httpd
18440 nobody 15 0 25436 15m 3936 S 1 0.4 3:33.14 httpd


ps aux|grep httpd|wc


223 2676 21592

WHM reports that average CPU usage is primarily used up by MySQL and FFMPEG.

Are faster drives the bottleneck or is this something that will only be resolved with two servers combined with faster disks?

Thanks for your help!

  #6  
Old 12-05-2007, 03:32 PM
Harzem Harzem is offline
Community Liaison
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 3,183
I think your server started to use swap. That means,

- Your RAM is hitting the limit, so the server wants to use swap,
- Your disks are slow, so swap is a bottleneck.

What you should do is, increase your ram by 2 Gigs, and add faster disks (4x SCSI on RAID-10). That should double your server capacity.

You may also want to look at litespeed to double your capacity twice.

  #7  
Old 12-05-2007, 04:01 PM
reasonpolice reasonpolice is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 97
Doesn't swaping always lead to high load and a server crash? (although there isn't swap use in the latest TOP)

What about quarter stroking
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=322

Instead of faster disks?

  #8  
Old 12-05-2007, 04:30 PM
Harzem Harzem is offline
Community Liaison
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Posts: 3,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by reasonpolice View Post
Doesn't swaping always lead to high load and a server crash? (although there isn't swap use in the latest TOP)

What about quarter stroking
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=322

Instead of faster disks?
Faster disks are still necessary, he needs SCSI drives for such a database. SATA can't compete with SCSI even when stroked, and we are talking about RAID-10 of 4 SCSI drives

  #9  
Old 12-05-2007, 04:44 PM
elvis1 elvis1 is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkPW View Post
I have one site on my server, a large portal (forum + download system) that receives over 30,000 visitors per day and 1,100 users online at peak (900 avg) - based on a 15 minute time-out.

The site is fairly database intensive (although I do cache many queries) and makes frequent use of the audio/video processors SoX and FFMPEG on files up to 7MB in size.

I've just upgraded from a Xeon "Dempsey" 3.0Ghz to the following, but it hasn't made much difference:

Dual Core Dual Processor Woodcrest 5130
2 x 320GB SATA, Hardware RAID 1
CentOS 4.5 32 bit
Apache/1.3.37
MySQL 4.1.21 (ISAM)

I've done all the MySQL and Apache optimisation I can, so it seems I now need two servers. My question is, what kind of servers would be suitable bearing in mind I'm trying to keep my budget to a minimum?

Any help would be appreciated.
dual clover ,raptors in raid +areca

$400x2+$150x2 +$400 approx

__________________
imagepedia.net
inthecloudblog.net

  #10  
Old 12-05-2007, 05:50 PM
Victor_n3v Victor_n3v is offline
Junior Guru Wannabe
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 35
I strongly encourage you to upgrade:

1. Memory
2. MySQL to 5.0 (if possible)
3. Apache to 2.2
4. PHP to 5.2 (if possible)

Best regards

__________________
www.n3v.net provides affordable system administration and support to companies and individuals with dedicated and colocated servers

  #11  
Old 12-05-2007, 07:39 PM
viettechorg viettechorg is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 328
Cheapest way for now is Litespeed. Best bang for the buck i can say. Free to Try anyway.

Your I/O Diskwait is not too bad. But SCSI would help.

IMO, After you have about 1500 user online then you can think about adding more server.

__________________
<<please see forum rules for signature formatting guidelines>>

  #12  
Old 12-05-2007, 07:43 PM
elvis1 elvis1 is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by viettechorg View Post
Cheapest way for now is Litespeed. Best bang for the buck i can say. Free to Try anyway.

Your I/O Diskwait is not too bad. But SCSI would help.

IMO, After you have about 1500 user online then you can think about adding more server.
litespeed aint cheap at all...
how about lighttpd instead?

__________________
imagepedia.net
inthecloudblog.net

  #13  
Old 12-05-2007, 07:48 PM
viettechorg viettechorg is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 328
I meant instead of adding another server. Litespeed is cheaper.

Lighttpd does not compatible with control panel. Very hard to config.

__________________
<<please see forum rules for signature formatting guidelines>>

  #14  
Old 12-05-2007, 07:54 PM
elvis1 elvis1 is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by viettechorg View Post
I meant instead of adding another server. Litespeed is cheaper.

Lighttpd does not compatible with control panel. Very hard to config.
yeah but you are gonna still have the "crappy" hardware with an optimized software.. not ideal..
my2c

__________________
imagepedia.net
inthecloudblog.net

  #15  
Old 12-06-2007, 11:46 AM
Creed3020 Creed3020 is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 260
Try one upgrade at a time and see how the performance changes.

I recommend starting with a RAM upgrade since you are at 90% usage now.

Go to 6 or 8 GB, whatever is offered by your server host and makes sense with your budget.

Then if performance is still lagging, go to faster hardrives like SCSI 10k or 15k RPM. The choice of RAID is up to you.

Reply

Related posts from TheWhir.com
Title Type Date Posted
Web Hosting Sales and Promos - June 13, 2014 Web Hosting News 2014-06-13 18:30:39
Web Hosting Sales and Promos Roundup – May 10, 2013 Web Hosting News 2014-05-23 15:43:06
ZNet Launches New Company NodeFirst to Serve India Dedicated Server Market Web Hosting News 2013-01-02 13:16:39
SingleHop Offers Dedicated Server Discounts with its New Data Center Outlet Web Hosting News 2012-10-02 12:25:41
NetHosting Improves Security, Performance with Updated Cloud Hosting Solutions Web Hosting News 2012-08-30 13:49:41


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Login:
Log in with your username and password
Username:
Password:



Forgot Password?
Advertisement:
Web Hosting News:



 

X

Welcome to WebHostingTalk.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

WebHostingTalk.com is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?