Server questions

[Michael Hyman <mh...@yahoo.com>]

Hi guys,

I have a dilemma that I need input on.

If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which would
you go with?

Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run
Solaris 9

Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run Linux

The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the buck
with PC.

The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server both
dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB in
size. The files will be stored locally.

What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to handle
more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a
reasonable price.

In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using Apache
1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM.

I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with Linux,
but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me that
Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty well
tuned and does not always need much tweaking.

Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and Linux, so
we can go either way as far as that goes.

I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the most
peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money.

So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my
positions.

Thanks in advance for the help!!

Regards...Michael

Re: Server questions

[Perrin Harkins <pe...@elem.com>]

Michael Hyman wrote:
> I am not familiar with clustering....
> 
> Would you run a mod_perl based web site on a cluster? Isn't the point of a
> cluster to make a group of machines appear to be one? If so, how is that
> beneficial for web services?

All large web sites run on multiple servers, for redundancy and 
performance reasons.  You put a load-balancer of some kind in front of 
them so that the group of machines has a single URL from the outside 
world.  This is called clustering.

I believe you'll be just fine with either Sun or PC hardware.  Large 
sites -- including huge ones like Yahoo, Amazon, and AOL -- usually 
prefer PC hardware these days because of the value they get for their money.

- Perrin

Re: Server questions

[Dzuy Nguyen <dz...@infinity-studios.com>]

Absolutely.  In this case, the cluster actually acts like a load balancing solution.


Michael Hyman wrote:
> I am not familiar with clustering....
> 
> Would you run a mod_perl based web site on a cluster? Isn't the point of a
> cluster to make a group of machines appear to be one? If so, how is that
> beneficial for web services?
> 
> Thanks...Michael
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dzuy Nguyen" <dz...@infinity-studios.com>
> To: "Modperl" <mo...@perl.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Server questions
> 
> 
> 
>>I always say, buy the best you can afford.
>>Then again, consider how many Linux PC you can have for the price of the
> 
> Sun.
> 
>>Run those PCs in a web farm or cluster and that Sun can't match the
> 
> processing
> 
>>power and speed.
>>
>>Michael Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>Hi guys,
>>>
>>>I have a dilemma that I need input on.
>>>
>>>If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which
> 
> would
> 
>>>you go with?
>>>
>>>Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run
>>>Solaris 9
>>>
>>>Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run
> 
> Linux
> 
>>>The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the
> 
> buck
> 
>>>with PC.
>>>
>>>The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server
> 
> both
> 
>>>dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB
> 
> in
> 
>>>size. The files will be stored locally.
>>>
>>>What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to
> 
> handle
> 
>>>more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a
>>>reasonable price.
>>>
>>>In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using
> 
> Apache
> 
>>>1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM.
>>>
>>>I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with
> 
> Linux,
> 
>>>but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me
> 
> that
> 
>>>Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty
> 
> well
> 
>>>tuned and does not always need much tweaking.
>>>
>>>Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and
> 
> Linux, so
> 
>>>we can go either way as far as that goes.
>>>
>>>I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the
> 
> most
> 
>>>peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money.
>>>
>>>So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my
>>>positions.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for the help!!
>>>
>>>Regards...Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Server questions

[Ged Haywood <ge...@www2.jubileegroup.co.uk>]

Hi there,

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Michael Hyman wrote:

> I am not familiar with clustering....
> 
> Would you run a mod_perl based web site on a cluster?

If the performance and the money for the hardware are issues then
perhaps before you buy you should spend some time looking into things
like alternative system architectures, software packages, development
methods, timescales and *those* costs...

There's a lot more to it than "what's the fastest machine".  Apache
isn't the fastest Web server on the planet and coding it in Perl isn't
the fastest way of implementing an algorithm.  Asking for data from
Oracle won't usually be the fastest way to get hold of it - especially
if the machine running Oracle is remote.  On the same hardware, you
might get ten times the performance from a well-tuned proxy server
setup than you can from a single mod_perl server.  And you might not.

Put all those things into a system and the difference between Solaris
and Linux or between PC and Sparc may well be lost in the noise.

And if you don't have a pretty good idea of where you're going with it
all before you set out, then you might not get there.  Have you any
metrics for the kinds of loads you expect to meet, and the parts of
the system which will use most resources to sustain them?  Do you know
what performance you can expect from the database under the expected
load conditions?  Is any of this under your control?

73,
Ged.

Re: Server questions

[Michael Hyman <mh...@yahoo.com>]

I am not familiar with clustering....

Would you run a mod_perl based web site on a cluster? Isn't the point of a
cluster to make a group of machines appear to be one? If so, how is that
beneficial for web services?

Thanks...Michael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dzuy Nguyen" <dz...@infinity-studios.com>
To: "Modperl" <mo...@perl.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Server questions


> I always say, buy the best you can afford.
> Then again, consider how many Linux PC you can have for the price of the
Sun.
> Run those PCs in a web farm or cluster and that Sun can't match the
processing
> power and speed.
>
> Michael Hyman wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I have a dilemma that I need input on.
> >
> > If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which
would
> > you go with?
> >
> > Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run
> > Solaris 9
> >
> > Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run
Linux
> >
> > The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the
buck
> > with PC.
> >
> > The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server
both
> > dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB
in
> > size. The files will be stored locally.
> >
> > What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to
handle
> > more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a
> > reasonable price.
> >
> > In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using
Apache
> > 1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM.
> >
> > I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with
Linux,
> > but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me
that
> > Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty
well
> > tuned and does not always need much tweaking.
> >
> > Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and
Linux, so
> > we can go either way as far as that goes.
> >
> > I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the
most
> > peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money.
> >
> > So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my
> > positions.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the help!!
> >
> > Regards...Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Server questions

[Dzuy Nguyen <dz...@infinity-studios.com>]

I always say, buy the best you can afford.
Then again, consider how many Linux PC you can have for the price of the Sun.
Run those PCs in a web farm or cluster and that Sun can't match the processing
power and speed.

Michael Hyman wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I have a dilemma that I need input on.
> 
> If you were to buy machines to be used as dedicated web servers, which would
> you go with?
> 
> Option 1. A Sun SunFire 280R with 2 Ultra 3 processors and 4GB RAM. Run
> Solaris 9
> 
> Option 2. PC-server with 2 ~2.8GHZ Xeon processors and 8GB RAM. Run Linux
> 
> The prices are worlds apart and I think I will get more bang for the buck
> with PC.
> 
> The systems will connect to an Oracle server, via SQL*Net and server both
> dynamic and static content along with providing download files up to 1GB in
> size. The files will be stored locally.
> 
> What I want to understand is which machine will be faster, be able to handle
> more peak loading, have a longer lifespan yet be upgradeable for a
> reasonable price.
> 
> In the benchmarking we have done, we run out of Ram before CPU using Apache
> 1.3.27 and Mod_perl, so we will heavily load the machines with RAM.
> 
> I have years of experience with Solaris and SunOS, and little with Linux,
> but the learning curve seems small and easily handled. It seems to me that
> Linux is more customizable than Solaris, but then Solaris comes pretty well
> tuned and does not always need much tweaking.
> 
> Apache and all of our software components support both Solaris and Linux, so
> we can go either way as far as that goes.
> 
> I think it comes down to a simple formula of which option gets us the most
> peak and sustained performance for the least amount of money.
> 
> So, I am looking for some input as to which way you might go in my
> positions.
> 
> Thanks in advance for the help!!
> 
> Regards...Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
>