New host needed! OMG!

[realmaverick]

After an terrible experience with one host, we've moved our services elsewhere and we're just met by daily issues.

We're paying for a dedicated server and also for a server admin service.

Today is the last straw, the site was crawling, so I contacted them asking them to trouble shoot and somehow, they've screwed a config file up and our sites are down.

I really need to be able to focus on my business and not be dealing with daily issues with my server.

We chose the company through reading recommendations. I think the problem is, we're not the average site. I'm guessing they're great if you receive a few hundred visits a day. Obviously they're not equipped to properly deal with a site of our size.

This is driving me to distraction.

Any recommendations would be much appreciated.

I'd use rackspace but their quote was almost £2,000 per month for what we needed, and despite the fact I want a reliable host, I must be able to find one without paying the earth.

 

[network79]

Hiya
What sort of load & spec are you using at the moment? What exactly makes your usage 'out of the ordinary'?

I know a couple of places that might be able to help you out depending on your needs..

Regards
Rob

 

[Trade Agency]

try justhost.com , they are a good company, they do shared and dedicated, very cheap. USA serversbut UK based. A* customer service via 24/7 live chat

 

[realmaverick]

What sort of load & spec are you using at the moment? What exactly makes your usage 'out of the ordinary'?

At the moment we have 2 dedicated servers, one for the webserver and the other for mySQL. I can't currently access to check but I believe it's a dual or quad core 2.2ghz with 6GB ram and 3x 250GB HDD.

What makes it our of the ordinary? I think it's a case that most of their clients are low usage, their site isn't demanding. If we had a host that dealt with higher usage sites more regularly, I'm sure they'd be much better equipped.

The main issue with Rackspace was they could only give us 1TB traffic with our package and the extra bandwidth we needed was going to cost a fortune.

Cheers

Paul

 

[stugster]

Hi Mate,

Is it the site that's the problem or the server?
Windows or Linux?

 

[stugster]

And why do you have your SQL separated from your Web server?

 

And why do you have your SQL separated from your Web server?

I was waiting for you to reply to say that!

 

[stugster]

I'd be very interested in finding out why anyone would want to increase their NIC traffic for no apparent reason

 

[realmaverick]

And why do you have your SQL separated from your Web server?

The site is very high in SQL usage and the web server was being hammered and so we had to use another server dedicated to SQL.

BTW I'm in no way a networking genius, I just took the advice of the host.

Though one of my clients is with Rackspace and they too have a dedicated SQL server.

 

[network79]

Try having a word with Rus at vaserv.com.. I visited the facilities they use a while back and was impressed compared to various other datacenters I've looked around.

Whilst there isnt much listed in the way of packages (within their a2b2 brand for dedicated servers), they're very flexible and can tailor most things down to exactly what you need.

Let him know I said Hi!

Regards
Rob

 

I'd be very interested in finding out why anyone would want to increase their NIC traffic for no apparent reason

Database services especially MS-SQL can be very resource hungry, why put it on the same server as the sites/email/DNS when it can have it's own dedicated box allowing it to run much faster as it has more power.

It allows databases to be hosted in one central location, much easier in terms of backups and security, not to mention management.

As long as you run the database server in it's own local network (with the other web servers) there is no difference in speed than having it on the same server as the domains.

 

[stugster]

I personally am against separating the database server from the web server on the basis that it is not improving the situation at all. Feel free to fire me an e-mail tomorrow morning and I can discuss it in much greater detail with you

 

realmaverick - what sort of bandwidth are you pushing out at the moment (per month)?

 

[Trade Agency]

try star.net.uk they are very good

 

[stugster]

As long as you run the database server in it's own local network (with the other web servers) there is no difference in speed than having it on the same server as the domains.

If the Web Server is having to continually send a request via the network to the SQL server, and then back, it is a huge difference. Especially if the connection is being tried by the web server anyway with requests from visitors.

 

If the Web Server is having to continually send a request via the network to the SQL server, and then back, it is a huge difference. Especially if the connection is being tried by the web server anyway with requests from visitors.

That's why you have 2 networks, internal & external. Trust me, it works just fine.

Do you really think the likes of big retailers / hosts with more than 1 server put database services on the same server as websites...

 

[ken_uk]

Whats the site in question? Whats it currently running on, is it a 'ix based or windows based server?

 

[dave_n]

I personally am against separating the database server from the web server on the basis that it is not improving the situation at all. Feel free to fire me an e-mail tomorrow morning and I can discuss it in much greater detail with you

blinkin eck stuart...i thought that was a typo....you should, wherever possible, separate your db from your webserver.

1. simplifies management
2. redundancy
3. increased efficiency
4. security
5. IO resource management - db on raid 5 and 1, webserver on raid 1
etc etc

 

blinkin eck stuart...i thought that was a typo....you should, wherever possible, separate your db from your webserver.

1. simplifies management
2. redundancy
3. increased efficiency
4. security
5. IO resource management - db on raid 5 and 1, webserver on raid 1
etc etc

Thank you, hopefully Stuart will stop slagging me off now for having separate database servers.

 

[stugster]

Dave,

How do you get redundancy from having SQL on one server and WWW on another?

Give me an example of the increase in efficiency as well.

Also, from a security aspect, if a user can hack your web server, and the web server has the ability to communicate with the SQL server, how is this link secured?

 

[realmaverick]

Also, from a security aspect, if a user can hack your web server, and the web server has the ability to communicate with the SQL server, how is this link secured?

This has gone way off topic.

I personally consider Rackspace to be among the best hosts in the world, I'm certain they'd not recommend a dedicated SQL server if it wasn't the right thing to do.

 

[dave_n]

Dave,

How do you get redundancy from having SQL on one server and WWW on another?

Give me an example of the increase in efficiency as well.

Also, from a security aspect, if a user can hack your web server, and the web server has the ability to communicate with the SQL server, how is this link secured?

sorry stu...i should have gave reasons why

1. redundancy - if your combined server goes titsup then you potentially lose the lot - db and web. Separate machines, especially geo-dispersed provide some protection around this.
2. Efficiency - separate machines removes IO competition. Databases are highly IO inbound intense and should ideally have transaction logs on a mirrored raid1 for speed and the data files on a raid5 for resilience...and these should be dedicated drives for the DB.
3. Security - you are separating functionality - the database server may hold data which is not available to the webserver. The webserver might be compromised but the hacker may still not able to get ahold of any confidential information.

hope this expands my argument a little better.

 

[stugster]

To the OP: Sorry for going off topic on this one!

To everyone who disagrees, Id be interested in a debate about it all on a new thread if you want?

In my experience, hosts who have had SQL separated from WWW have caused severe issues to their customers.

I have other theories as to why it would be good practice to keep them together, but obviously in respect to the OP, these should all be discussed on another thread.

Dave, thanks for the info, although the redundant issue wouldn't be an answer to the point raised. If you had two separate SQL servers where the second SQL server came on when the first one dies, this would be an example of redundancy. You're not preventing a catastrophic failure of service, thusly, not providing redundancy.

Fancy starting a thread?

 

[dave_n]

yes agree with stu...sorry for hijacking the post.

stu - yep separate thread deffo.

gotta take the dog on the beach (the alsatian that is!)
brb

 

[ozbon]

Getting back on-topic, I'd recommend Dreamhost (allbeit that they're over in the US) for this kind of thing. (Note : There's a referral code on that URL - if you don't want to use it, just visit their normal URL)

I don't know what their true bandwidth limits etc. are - they punt themselves as "unlimited", but I'm sure that there'll be "fair use" clauses in there somewhere.

However, they already do all their servers in clusters with a separate db server, so it shouldn't be a nightmare to sort your site onto their servers.

Also, I'm not sure if they do any Windows packages (following on from the mention of SQL server earlier in the thread) but it might be worth looking at.

 

[stugster]

Realmaverick,

Speak to the guys at UK2.net

 

[stugster]

Another question: It would be interesting to find out how often your database is updated (not just read), as this may have a bearing on the responses you receive

 

[Gavin-Design-Right]

Drop me an email mate i'm sure I can help you

 

[Interconnect IT]

Back to the OP - we use Namesco. No troubles, but high-bandwidth well managed hosting is never going to be cheap. Also enjoyed dealings with UK Fast and Rackspace. We also have a client server with NTT which they manage, but that setup isn't to our spec, is very expensive, and runs on Solaris (eek!).

 

[nickpp]

You would be amazed at the difference a properly set up mysql engine can do, specially with lots of ram available, most distros use the standard mysql conf that bottlenecks mysql lookups.

Can only see the point of running mysql on a separate server for a clustered solution, we run servers with very high volumes of traffic with properly set up mysql and optimised php. You could also look at running http://www.lighttpd.net/ this reduces resources massively.