Are RAID and Dual processors necessary for Small Biz Servers?

[zacmc]

I am looking to assemble a server this summer to host a friends site and some of my own.
There will be some dynamic content and database connectivity in the sites. Is it necessary,
well not necessary, but practical to spend the extra money (which I really don't have) on
two disks and a RAID controller for storage capability? Also, is it practical to run a
Dual processor machine for hosting a few smaller sites?

Regardless whether or not I run Dual processors I'll prob buy a board that is capable of running
dual, so if anyone can recommend some good boards I'd appreciate that also. I have only really
looked at one board (tigerdirect mag vol.XII issue 3A) and it is the Tyan S2460 Dual Socket A board.

-zacmc😕

 

[Vegito]

Get one processor and add one later on when it overloads.. Raid is for protection more than speed.. so if you dont have money raid a IDE drive

Depending how much db you use, you may want dual processor..

Warning on ide raid, some ide drive like ibm do not recommend that you use the drive for more than 8 hours a day.. not recommended for 24/7

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

it really depends on the load they will be handling....i have never hosted any website that gets a decent amount of traffic so i wouldnt know how much traffic it takes to need high end hardware...

depending on the traffic, you could be ok with a p233 or you might need a tbird 1Ghz....just depends...

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Here's what you do, and anyone else should do if they're thinking about making their own server. Check out a managed hosting company like verio and rackspace.com

Check out what type of systems they offer. People think AMD XP 1900+ procs are necessary for running web servers when they're really NOT. If you're using a database, depending on the software(multi-threaded) dual procs can be really helpful, but it also depends on the load. How much traffic are you really expecting? If these are just personal sites with a tiny bit of db connectivity, then skip the extra expense. RAID is there for redundancy, data protection. If you have something on this server you don't want to lose, then by all means think about going either RAID 1(2 drives min.) or RAID 5(3 drives min.). If you want to skip out on paying for the extra drives, try to find a cheap tape backup solution. Travan's are pretty inexpensive now... get yourself a 20G SCSI or IDE travan drive.

Unless you really NEED a lot of power, you could easily get away with using just a simple Duron 800 system. Just depends how big of a site you're creating.

 

[bozo1]

What chrisisbored said.

Your limiting factor is going to be the network speed, even with many, many people connected. A machine capable of running your OS will happily work - even a Pentium 133 if running Linux, a 400 or so if using W2K. No need for anything more unless you are running a big database on the backend.

 

[jaylee11]

Is that travan ide tape drive a good drive? My friend is thinking on putting one on a server. The guy he is building it for wants at least xp1600, and he is planning on using the asus dual cpu board. what do you think.

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Travan's are okay but by no means would I consider them great. They're inexpensive though which is the good part if you're building a cheap server.

If you're looking for something more reliable I would try a DLT or AIT tape drive. They get pretty expensive though..

I happen to have 2 Sony SDT-11,000 & a SDT-9,000 drives for sale... if interested shoot me a PM.

 

[Goosemaster]

Travan Drives are not bad at all, but they are slower than molasus. Expect hours of backup time.

I would seriously consider the Vx1 backup drive line by Ecrix

They are speedy(6MBps is fast for a tapedrive...disregarding superhindend models).

In addition, they are pretty affortable. Their main advantage, one that I hope you never realize deals with the quailty of their tapes. THey are basically minitanks. Those badboys can handle an array of thrashings an still keep data readable.


Hope this helps

 

[Goosemaster]

It seems however, that however extreme your situation may get, it will probably never merit needing a tape drive. I would recommend two things.

1. Run a mandatory RAID 1 Array..Raid o+1 if you also are going for speed. This will require 4 drives for optimal preformance, but it will be worth it..i.e..you can rebuild data in the event of hardware failure and yet not yeild to the speed of one drive.

2. Backup to a harddrive. This seems like a better choice than a tape-based solution. First ofall, the backup time will be decreased, minimizing downtime for your noctural clients. In addittion, restoration-from copy will be loads faster using an HD. Finally, the financial savings are more favorable in this situation. There is really no point in spending a lavish amount on a backup solution that costs more than a majority of your server equipment.

Of course, the backup HD could fail, but there only a remote possibility that it would fail when your server failed. This still leaves room for doubt, and a power surge could definitely fry everything. If you are hardpressed to rely on technology that has even a remote chance of failure, I highly advis you to go for the tape.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not that I have much actual experience, but tape drives are miserably slow. Better to store compressed images on a HDD in a removeable tray- your server goes down briefly when you need to install or remove the tray, no big deal, and you can store generational backups on the same drive. It's not like the assembly line stops or you lose out on a multi-million dollar deal if the server goes down briefly.

Any super stable single processor mid-range box with a fairly large amount of memory should serve your purposes just fine..... like a P3 700mhz on a bx board. Unless you're planning a free pr0n site.....