I have searched long and hard on this board for the perfect dedicated host and I think I have found it in FastServers.net.
I will be running a couple of static ASP sites with minimal MS Access database support and 1 pretty busy forum site that uses a SQL Server database making full use of stored procedures. The sites are generating so much traffice that shared hosting is no longer an option.
FastServer.net offered me 300GB transfer on a 1,2Ghz Celeron machine for around $300 including SQL server. This is a good deal right? Any negative experiences with FastServers.net? Any other (better?) companies that offer simular offers?
I am part of the FastServers.Net team so I won't comment or provide a sales pitch here, but I would recommend starting a discussion about SQL Server and performance needs within this thread. While the server you are talking about might work out in terms of running the application performance on it is going to be a bit sluggish.
A good technical discussion on the overhead and minimum requirements for SQL Server might be in your best interest.
Good to see people from FastServers.net on this board. Always a good sign.
As far as I know there are advantages and disvantages to running your webserver and SQL server on the same machine. Advantages: no network traffic between both seperate servers. Disadvantages: less power for both.
Are you suggesting I take a heavier machine to run both webserver and sql server on, or are you suggesting I seperate the both and go for a seperate SQL server?
FYI, the heaviest site is a forum with about 100 concurrent users at its peak. It uses ASP en SQL server stored procedures.
I know that performance will be better on a seperate sql server machine but I cannot rent two dedicated servers. How much is that going to cost me.....
So the solution would then be for me to get a dedicated web server and a shared sql server. Do you think that will give me better performance then putting both on my dedicated. At least then I know there are no other people messing up the database
FastServer.net, you offer SQL Server for $108/month. I suppose that is for putting it on your own box, or is it the price for giving me access to a shared SQL server machine?
Other than cost, there are not any good reasons to have SQL and web on the same server. If you connect the database server and the webserver via a cross over or back end network, you won't have network traffic. Not only does this save on bw costs, it is faster and more secure! You should avoid connecting via the Internet!
If your SQL does not run a great deal than the machine you suggested might work. I personally would avoid a Celeron processor for SQL. SQL required heavy resouces including processor and memory.
If you can, go with a Celeron machine for your Web and a beefier machine for your SQL. Otherwise, go with a beefier server for both.
The SQL license (must be a processor license, not the CAL version) is expensive. SQL is an excellent product, and you pay for what you get.
Brad @ Xiolink
XIOLINK. Your data...always within reach.® http://www.xiolink.com
1-877-4-XIOLINK [+01 314 621 5500]
Thats a very hard question, but i think it will run ok. You would maybe see a slowdown at peak times.
It will also heavily depend upon the boards code. Does it use stored procedures? is it optimised code? etc etc. A badly written board could cause you unwarranted overhead.