Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    872

    Question regarding Clustered hosting.

    Just wondering, would it be better to have a bunch of a cheap servers or couple of expensive servers for clustered hosting?

    I think, its better to have cheap servers, so if hardware breaks, its easy to replace.

    Anyways, I want some professional input on this.
    hosted by HawkHost
    I Recommend: LimeStone Networks!
    The OverSeller Defender!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tampa FL
    Posts
    2,378
    I believe that is similar to how google runs things.
    Ceridius Networks Sales
    Email/MSN [email protected]
    Ceridius Networks - Reseller of Hivelocity Hosting
    Network Speed Test

  3. #3
    Higher end hardware is always better. It breaks less often and more importantly, usually has hot swap components. You can replace things like drives, fans, power supplies and in some cases ram and nics without taking servers offline and without losing service.

    Using low end nodes in clusters is no different then using low end nodes in non clustered solutions. There are benefits to higher end equipment and those benefits are present whether or not you are clustering...

    hope this helps...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    641
    I would say a cluster of inexpensive servers is better, you can get more for the same price. If an entire machine dies who cares, get a new one online eventually. Having redundant redundant servers is a little bit too redundant some might say.
    Kevin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Before this discussion goes any further, I think you need to define the term "cluster" for the purposes of this thread. A cluster doesn't have to be redundant.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by HP-Kevin View Post
    I would say a cluster of inexpensive servers is better, you can get more for the same price. If an entire machine dies who cares, get a new one online eventually. Having redundant redundant servers is a little bit too redundant some might say.
    couldnt disagree more..

    every time we have built a cluser with low end gear, we have regretted it and ended up upgrading the nodes.

    If you really want to go inexepensive - look at blades. the chassis will have redundancy for power, nics, fans, etc built in - then each blade is just an inexpensive node with CPU, RAM and mirrored OS. Backend the blades with a nice SAN - and you have a viable solution. Stringing together a bunch of low end Celeron or PIV's with IDE or SATA drives will cost you in the long run. The capacity of each node is greatly reduced, you are creating bottlenecks in all sorts of places and as a result, if you arent careful with managing your capacity, a loss of a single node at an inopportune time can bring the hole cluster down - meaning you are effectively creating multiple points of failure unnecessarily...

    Just my $0.02

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    Before this discussion goes any further, I think you need to define the term "cluster" for the purposes of this thread. A cluster doesn't have to be redundant.
    I am assuming they mean load balanced clusters - but, the same holds true for any type of cluster really...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    289
    It depends on the scale of your business or cluster.
    If it requires hundreds or even thousands servers, and the failure isn't avoidable, more cheap normal servers will be better.
    If you only require several servers, high end multi-proc/core servers may be better.

Posting Permissions

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