View Poll Results: Which type of hosting for high availability?

Voters
11. This poll is closed
  • Dedicated Hosting

    1 9.09%
  • Clustered Hosting

    10 90.91%
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
Wireless Networks Thread, Hosting Advice in Technical; Hello all, Which type of hosting would you invest in for a high availability website? A choice between Dedicated Hosting ...
  1. #1

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328

    Question Hosting Advice

    Hello all,

    Which type of hosting would you invest in for a high availability website? A choice between Dedicated Hosting and Clustered Hosting. I think Clustered would get my vote, but what would you use and why? Any recommendations of providers would be welcome too. This would run on Linux and MySQL. Many thanks

    My initial thoughts on Clustered Hosting are added redundancy and load balancing, as well as being more cost effective. All views would be welcome

  2. #2
    SC-UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    569
    Thank Post
    36
    Thanked 85 Times in 71 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    Can't really comment on the choice of hosting type, but I would definitely have a look at CS New Media. Carl's on here and an all round good guy.

    CS New Media Web Hosting

  3. 2 Thanks to SC-UK:

    CSNM-Carl (23rd March 2010), Michael (23rd March 2010)

  4. #3

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    Thanks, but as far as I can see CS New Media do not offer Dedicated or Clustered hosting solutions but only shared or VPS.

    Personally I'm not a fan of VPS because you may have 20 customers for example, with each of them running separate processes which consequently eats up CPU cycles. Lets say each of them are running/using 10 processes; that would mean 200 processes running at once. It's not that efficient.

  5. #4

    john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,439
    Thank Post
    1,468
    Thanked 1,035 Times in 908 Posts
    Rep Power
    299
    Carl @ CSNM will offer what you need, so talk to him, if you say I need X,Y and Z he will sort it and tell you what it will cost you, his service is unbelievably, replying to tickets at stupid o'clock and solving little niggles that I should do but can't see the tick box for tiredness etc, he is a VERY good guy and well worth talking to.

  6. 2 Thanks to john:

    CSNM-Carl (23rd March 2010), Michael (23rd March 2010)

  7. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,466
    Thank Post
    292
    Thanked 301 Times in 260 Posts
    Rep Power
    80
    Personally for a site that needed 99.999%+ uptime then I'd seriously be looking at some form of clustered hosting.

    I'd likely look at using something like the Amazon elastic compute cloud to easily run multiple web servers across a number of datacentres, and when needed, increase the capacity at the touch of a button

  8. Thanks to Soulfish from:

    Michael (23rd March 2010)

  9. #6

    matt40k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ipswich
    Posts
    4,135
    Thank Post
    352
    Thanked 577 Times in 474 Posts
    Rep Power
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Thanks, but as far as I can see CS New Media do not offer Dedicated or Clustered hosting solutions but only shared or VPS.

    Personally I'm not a fan of VPS because you may have 20 customers for example, with each of them running separate processes which consequently eats up CPU cycles. Lets say each of them are running/using 10 processes; that would mean 200 processes running at once. It's not that efficient.

    You'll be suprised, CPU isn't the problem with VPS, most VPS servers hardly use any CPU, it's the IO that's the problem. You just can't get fast enough discs.

    @Soulfish
    I heard there have been issue with Amazon's load balancers where it doesn't always fall-over quickly, so it can take mins to recover. If this is true you'll be better off with a good VPS\dedi.

    www.clustered.net is good for dedicated VPS, REALLY fast. Also www.laughingsquid.us is using RackSpace would are just awesome.

  10. Thanks to matt40k from:

    Michael (23rd March 2010)

  11. #7
    RingOfFlame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    192
    Thank Post
    101
    Thanked 69 Times in 42 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    How about {removed by users request}
    Last edited by SYNACK; 30th March 2010 at 01:04 AM. Reason: Removed possibly questionable link by users request

  12. Thanks to RingOfFlame from:

    Michael (23rd March 2010)

  13. #8

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    The best I've found is iweb.com which appear to be offering exactly what I am looking for. They offer both load balancing and web clusters.

    All opinions welcome, but thanks all for your contributions and vote

  14. #9
    CSNM-Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Teesside
    Posts
    344
    Thank Post
    145
    Thanked 62 Times in 50 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Thanks, but as far as I can see CS New Media do not offer Dedicated or Clustered hosting solutions but only shared or VPS.

    Personally I'm not a fan of VPS because you may have 20 customers for example, with each of them running separate processes which consequently eats up CPU cycles. Lets say each of them are running/using 10 processes; that would mean 200 processes running at once. It's not that efficient.
    It's not as simple as this. The servers we use are very high-end with 2 x quad-core processors, and each core hyper-threaded giving us "16 cores" per server in total. We also operate services which carefully manage the priority of every process to ensure that processes are spread most efficiently across all cores, and that each VPS gets a reasonable amount of CPU time. Having 200 processes running at once is almost nothing, the servers we use can can very easily handle significantly more processes than this with thousands of processes being quite normal without impacting performance at all.

    Disk I/O isn't that much of a problem either to be honest, especially if using SAS disks in RAID10.

    The above cannot be said about all VPS providers though.

    What type of website/application do you need to host that requires such a high level of uptime/redundancy out of interest? It's good to see you are planning things properly.

  15. #10

    matt40k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ipswich
    Posts
    4,135
    Thank Post
    352
    Thanked 577 Times in 474 Posts
    Rep Power
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by CSNM-Carl View Post
    Disk I/O isn't that much of a problem either to be honest, especially if using SAS disks in RAID10.
    What planet are you on? I think you need to read about seek times etc. It might be ok if your server is full of IRC servers.

  16. #11
    CSNM-Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Teesside
    Posts
    344
    Thank Post
    145
    Thanked 62 Times in 50 Posts
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by matt40k View Post
    What planet are you on? I think you need to read about seek times etc. It might be ok if your server is full of IRC servers.
    We don't allow IRC services on our servers. Are you familiar with looking after & running a VPS hosting environment Matt?

  17. #12

    matt40k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ipswich
    Posts
    4,135
    Thank Post
    352
    Thanked 577 Times in 474 Posts
    Rep Power
    142
    Beg your pardon, forgot redfox doesn't allow IRC.

    Nope. I know people who are, who are a little more experienced then I, who tell me the problem with VPS providing is disc IO. After all, a 16GB server will have about 50 customers, 50 people hitting the disc will cause a bit of a IO performance issue, unless they don't really use the disc. Stuff like IRC don't really touch the disc. You may have alot of throughput, but if the disc is having to travel back and forth it's going to bottleneck, even at 15k rpm.

  18. #13

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    What type of website/application do you need to host that requires such a high level of uptime/redundancy out of interest? It's good to see you are planning things properly.
    I can't really say at the moment, but soon will all be revealed. I don't actually need such hosting at the current time, however it's good to explore options and keep my options open.

    Everyone's entitled to their own opinions with VPS, but as you correctly mentioned I have been stung badly in the past using a VPS solution, but you live and learn. At the time it was a VPS using 64bit Windows and the reliability and performance was appalling.

    To be honest it's not so much high bandwidth that I need but more high uptime and with a web cluster this is much more feasible. Taking one server down for an upgrade or even a simple reboot keeps the site live.

  19. #14

    vikpaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Saudi Arabia
    Posts
    5,589
    Thank Post
    638
    Thanked 1,306 Times in 1,088 Posts
    Rep Power
    336
    I'm for clustered too, for similar reasons, failover, load balance, expandability, etc.
    things to consider, what do you want the high availability for? speed/storage, or uptime, lack of failure, ease of maintenance...

    EDIT: currently planning our sharepoint setup, self-hosted, but thinking about having two less powerful front end webservers, so can fiddly around with 1, bring it down, update and restart, whilst the other takes the load, then switch and update other. i don't mind if it's slow for a while, plus they wont be being hammered.

    if i wanted loads of users and to have lots of fast access, would probably go for single more powerful box, with spread of fast drives, and live with downtime. though longterm a combo option would seem best.
    Last edited by vikpaw; 27th March 2010 at 12:59 PM. Reason: addition

  20. #15

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    8,941
    Thank Post
    232
    Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,206 Posts
    Rep Power
    328
    what do you want the high availability for?
    Primarily it'll be for uptime, redundancy and also ease of maintenance. Quite rightly it'll also allow me to add additional servers as and when necessary.

    To be honest I don't think web servers need to be extremely powerful. When I see hosting providers offering Core 2 Quad servers it sounds appealing, but I would rather have two or more less powerful servers based on Celeron's for example. Even a low end Celeron can process traffic efficiently. Memory and hard disks are more important in a hosting solution rather than the processor.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CV advice, and general Job searching advice
    By mossj in forum Educational IT Jobs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 14th May 2009, 09:32 PM
  2. Advice on free podcast hosting sites requested...
    By GenieNitro in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25th April 2009, 08:46 PM
  3. Hosting
    By Edu-IT in forum East Midlands Broadband Consortium (EMBC)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 16th April 2009, 10:46 PM
  4. Moodle, pros and cons of self hosting v using a commercial hosting service
    By kennysarmy in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10th September 2008, 10:51 AM
  5. Website Hosting (Websys Hosting)
    By Inox in forum Web Development
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20th January 2006, 05:46 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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