| 4:36 pm on Jul 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am no expert, but I have a site running on a single Celeron 1.7GHz with 512MB RAM, that serves 130,000 pages a day, all with some database activity. That copes just fine, server load runs at about 0.2, so i would've thought what you are looking at should be powerful enough - especially with not much database activity.
| 4:46 pm on Jul 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If very low database activities mean most pages ares static, you are fine, the bottleneck will be the bandwidth, not the server.
If it is dynamic, I am not so sure... It depends on many things. The easy way to find out is to check what's the hardware that runs the sites now.
One thing more; I always buy for 1G memory with dual Xeon based servers, makes noticable difference...
| 5:11 pm on Jul 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's looks like an excellent config for your requirements. I'm using a similar setup (with lots more ram but with heavy DB access), and I certainly can't complain with it so far.
I'd agree with starec, go with 1Gb. You can't ever have enough RAM. :)
If this particular Linux box is with the particular large company I'm hosting with, then you're on a good deal. Support is excellent, no problems with downtime. Your client should be very happy. :)
| 5:33 am on Jul 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Memory, memory, memory! You can run large sites on pathetically old computers if they have enough RAM. RAM is your friend, especially when you've got 5400 RPM hard drives... sorry, personal problem. :)
| 12:52 pm on Jul 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Imaster, my speciality area is dual servers.
Dell is great for some things. For multi processor servers talk to some other smaller - and preferably - local companies first to get a feel for what's what. You are spending a lot of money. It's always worth doing the research in detail, understanding all the terminologies used to describe various components, getting alternate quotes for the same technology and THEN making your decision.
I'll be happy to answer any advanced technical questions here in this thread.
From the discussion so far there is no reason whatsoever to go for 5400 rpm hard disks. If someone is offering that to you in a dual processor server that is disgusting. However, from your figure of 73 GB I suspect it's a SCSI drive. Relevant questions would be the spindle speed (10K is average, 15K is max), whether it's Ultra160 or Ultra320, and very importantly how much of cache is on the hard disk. Don't settle for just 2 or 4 MB.
More RAM is usually good upto a certain point. Also important is the speed of the RAM - the (incorrectly labelled) DDRSDRAM PC3200 is of course faster than the (incorrectly labelled) DDRSDRAM PC2100. (They should really be called DDR400 and DDR266.)
Either way it should be registered ECC RAM, which I suspect it will be with Dell. You may want to check the CAS latency as well. Give me 512 MB of really good, fast, but ECC reliable RAM over some slow 1024 MB anyday. (ECC is generally slower than non-ECC RAM but used in servers as it's more reliable. Many server motherboards work only with ECC)
Drawbacks with machines like the Dell are that they use proprietory parts and you can't usually get independent reviews for major components like the motherboard. That is ALWAYS bad as you'll have no choice but to go back to the manufacturer for RAM and other upgrades. Also, you have no way of comparing it with other makes/models.
| 3:12 pm on Jul 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not only consider costs, but also think about the support and maintenance after the machine has been purchased. If it takes two weeks for the vendor to resolve an issue, was it really worth the initial cost savings?
| 11:12 am on Jul 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
JuniorHarris, good point. The better companies have SLAs (Service Level Agreements). Read the small print carefully. Do they guarantee an 8 hours response time only if your problem happens on a slow Monday in March and provided it's not raining in Moscow? There are several good places you can research third party and customer feedback on the quality of a company's service.
| 11:16 am on Jul 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thank you everyone for all your help and input here :)
It has certainly helped me in my plan.