Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:12 am
by Buddha443556
Personally, I would just be happy to find a customer with pockets that deep. Just build a 49 server cluster (or two cluster - one for fail-over) and enjoy it. At least for a while, you can later point out the waste and say, "I told you so."
I would definitely not take the stock option on this project though.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:18 am
by feyd
yeah.. with that kind of burn rate for such a small project, take it all in money...
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:36 am
by m3mn0n
Bill H wrote:Because he could use the money for much better things,
On the other hand, it's
his money, and that's
your definition of better.
That's an odd point considering this thread exists only to gather our opinions, and more specifically our opinions of what's better.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:41 am
by Chris Corbyn
42
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:52 am
by Trenchant
waradmin wrote:49 is overkill, plain and simple. For a site with 600 people online max at one time, 3 servers with high spec's would do the job. Chances are this Neopets clone isnt constantly doing querys. Dedicate a server or 2 to mysql you dont need to have that many. Plus, where is this guy hosting 49 servers from?
They are planning on expanding and they are advertising currently.
The reason I'm trying to point this out to him is because he's obviously not a guy with server administration experience. I use to run a petsite like that and I have a pet pieve against banner ads. I think his site could be described best as a banner portal.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:54 am
by m3mn0n
Expanding? LOL
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:01 am
by Bill H
Well, I certainly have no issue with:
"How many servers are really needed?"
"I don't think he needs that many."
"I would not run that many if it were my site."
But I take some issue with:
"He should shut some of them off."
Why? It's his money, his site. Why should anyone else tell him what to do with it.
That was what my original post was about.
I asked why he should shut any of them off if he didn't want to.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:10 pm
by Roja
Bill H wrote:I asked why he should shut any of them off if he didn't want to.
Because this thread was created to get feedback on the topic. Just because you don't like the phrasing of the feedback doesn't change it being an on-topic and appropriate answer.
If I had a client who gave me the same list of infrastructure to power the same list of needs, I would benchmark, profile, and more. If those numbers added up to my initial impression, I would absolutely advise him to shut many of them off.
For point of comparison, Slashdot, currently the #426 highest traffic site as ranked by Alexa, runs on *ten* servers. Ten. Its incredibly dynamic, and has a massive codebase powering it.
Marapets is #29,815. It requires five times as many servers? Its less dynamic, and gets less traffic. That makes no sense.
By any reasonable calculation, it should require no more than Slashdot uses. Saying so is exactly the response I would give to someone asking "How many servers does this require".
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:09 pm
by josh
maybe the sites just full of all sorts of $count = mysql_num_rows(mysql_result('select * from table')); goodness
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:09 pm
by Chris Corbyn
jshpro2 wrote:maybe the sites just full of all sorts of $count = mysql_num_rows(mysql_result('select * from table')); goodness
Or :
Code: Select all
while (true)
{
add_a_new_server();
}
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:20 pm
by waradmin
I think that the electric cost for running 49 servers would be about the same ammount of $ as it would be to rent 3 or 4.
-steve
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:24 pm
by Bill H
Because this thread was created to get feedback on the topic. Just because you don't like the phrasing of the feedback doesn't change it being an on-topic and appropriate answer.
So they are entitled to express their opinions and I'm not entitled to express mine?
To expand on that a bit: I'm offering a reason why he
should run 49 servers, and some seem not to like that. It seems posts which disagree with the initial premise (that he should not run that many servers) are unpopular. Why? He's not hurting anybody by running that many servers, and if it gives him that mush pleasure to do it, in what way is it causing you such a problem? And why does my supporting his enjoyment of it cause you such a problem?
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:22 pm
by Roja
Bill H wrote:So they are entitled to express their opinions and I'm not entitled to express mine?
No one criticized you for offering that opinion.
On the contrary, you were and still are the only person in the thread challenging someone for giving their honest answer to the question.
Bill H wrote:To expand on that a bit: I'm offering a reason why he should run 49 servers, and some seem not to like that.
You haven't given a reason. You've postulated that perhaps he likes to run that many, but haven't offered a reason that he would like to. Or put more accurately, most of the posts have given arguments and ideas as to how and why to reduce the current server load, while your response was "Why not leave it alone".
Bill H wrote:And why does my supporting his enjoyment of it cause you such a problem?
Encouraging someone to run too many servers doesn't bother me at all. Challenging someone giving an honest answer to an open question, when you havent given any factual counter-arguments, does.
You've posted the only counter argument, which was:
- If he likes it, why not keep doing it?
So far, the "Against" camp has responded with:
- High electric costs
- High server to processing ratios
- Poor design
- High server costs
Let people answer honestly, even if you don't agree with their position. If you hold the opposite position, then put forth convincing arguments to sway the discussion. So far, there hasn't been a convincing argument for using 49 servers to power a site that gets 1/1,000th the traffic of a site using 5 times LESS hardware!
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:34 pm
by Bill H
Okay, I'll offer a reason why he
should do it:
He likes doing it.
That's an odd point considering this thread exists only to gather our opinions
I'm not sure quite how to take that, but this gist of this whole thread is that everybody seems to know this guy's business better than he does.
For some years I used to lose clients by being very expert (and arrogant) and telling them what they ought to do and how they ought to run their business. You know what? People don't like that. For the past, oh, thirty years or so I have tended more to ask them what they would like for me to do for them and then do it. I keep a lot more clients that way.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:37 pm
by hawleyjr
Roja wrote:For point of comparison, Slashdot, currently the #426 highest traffic site as ranked by Alexa, runs on *ten* servers. Ten. Its incredibly dynamic, and has a massive codebase powering it.
Roja, out of curiosity, where did you get this stat?