Celeron 420 vs Orleans 3200

[Zxian]

RAID0 or 10 would only help if you're having multiple concurrent disk reads, for example from a VERY large database. If the site is mostly the same data over and over, that data will be cached, and disk speed shouldn't be a major concern.

[ripken204]

zxian, earlier you said:

I'm assuming that we're going to be dealing with fairly "standard" web services here, and nothing where a single request would require a large amount of resources.

i need it mainly for mysql databases and some of the databases will have tens of thousands of entires, could be in the 100,000's

it will definatly be better than a shared server with hundreds of other people on it! and i may be able to have the server paid by a group.

btw, here is one review i could find on the cpus:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=663

i just think i'm going to go with the celeron and save some money. if i need anything faster in the future then i will upgrade.

Edited November 15, 2007 by ripken204

[puntoMX]

All depends how many rows and columns your data base has, and apart of that how many users are digging in it and /or changing things. It could help if you made a good list of what is exactly running on those machines (or in the near future).

[nmX.Memnoch]

do any of you have some good recommendations on hosts?

I used to use The Planet. Their service was really good and they're connected to all of the major backbones. The only reason I don't use them anymore is I don't have the need now. I'm not sure if they still are, but HardOCP used to be hosted at The Planet. Bjorn3D is hosted there as well. The Inquirer is (or was), too.

You will not get much out of RAID in your webserver.

If you're using dynamic pages (PHP, ASP, ColdFusion, etc) you will most definitely see a difference when using a robust disk sub-system. Besides, given the option in a production server you should always use RAID (but never RAID0). Edited November 16, 2007 by nmX.Memnoch

[puntoMX]

You will not get much out of RAID in your webserver.

If you're using dynamic pages (PHP, ASP, ColdFusion, etc) you will most definitely see a difference when using a robust disk sub-system. Besides, given the option in a production server you should always use RAID (but never RAID0).

Off-site FTP backup, he can’t manage his own server physically, nor can he rebuild his array (I would be surprised if the let him)...

[nmX.Memnoch]

That why you have a support package with the hoster. They are your "hands and eyes" on-site.

Let me ask this question...is he looking for hosting or co-location? There's a difference.

"Hosting" would be where he rents a dedicated server from the hoster. They own the server and are responsible for repairing it.

"Co-location" would be where he owns the box and is putting it in their rack on their network. In that case he's responsible for the hardware because he owns it. This is also usually much more expensive.

When I was using the planet I wasn't using RAID, but the server did have two drives in it. I had custom scripts that ran four times a day and backed up everything from drive 0 to drive 1, and everything from drive 1 to drive 0. That way if one of them failed I was assured that I had something that was at least remotely recent. It worked out very well (we had to have the OS drive reinstalled once...and didn't lose anything).

[ripken204]

i would have a hosted server, so it is theirs.

i plan on having 2 drives, i guess i just wont raid them then.

i'll take a look at that host nmX, thanks.