RE: [cobalt-users] need advice more details

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

m> Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:20:54 +0200
m> From: master


m> Yes thats correct, but i also dont like the idee to host this
m> on 1 server

I agree, unless that one server were very redundant and
resilient.


m> I have access to a 100mb ethernetline

Okay, good.  If each of those 200 sites pushes 10 GB/mo, you'll
need it.  See below, however; if that's 10 GB/mo _total_ a 10
Mbps connection is more than enough.


m> The sites are verry small about 10 mb a site, 

Ohhhh.... okay.  200 sites * 10 MB/site = 2000 MB _total_.  A
single machine will handle that nicely, and you can use a second
one for failover.


m> the space is being used for there costumers to upload files
m> (its a copyshop) 

Is the 10 GB/mo for _each_ of the 200 sites, or a _total_ for all
of them?  If it's for each site, it would be better for the
copyshop to have the machines at its location.

If it's 10 GB/mo _total_ for all sites, 10 Mbps will work just
fine.  I think I misunderstood your original message, and was
multiplying your requirements by 200.


m> the files wil be in amounts of about 25 mb
m> My costumer will get a email that someone has uploaded an file
m> and then they will download these files ones a day.

The system watches for new files and automatically emails?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way to do this on
Linux is to 1) hack the FTP daemon to generate some sort of
notice or 2) poll the directory structure.  One can't just open
a fd on a directory and have kevent() indicate directory changes.

My point is that scanning the directory tree is inefficient.  If
you want automatic notification, a few FTP hacks probably will be
the easiest way.


m> So i dont think there will be a heavy load for the servers 
m> at the same times.

You are correct.  Simply using a machine as a file repository
will result in a very low load.  A single-CPU PII would be plenty
for 2 GB of disk and 10 GB/mo of transfer.


m> The sites are very simpel no special support requered

So using a RaQ is a preference, but not mandatory?  Although now
that I think I understand what you need, the storage requirements
are well within what a RaQ can do.


m> So i like the idee of several raid servers, and a backup server

I agree.


m> so when a server breaks down, i can easely put it back on line.

You could have a warm standby running rsync to keep files up to
date with the primary server.  When the primary server dies, take
over the IP address of the primary box.

In fact, I'm tempted to suggest using vrrpd (Virtual Redundant
Router Protocol Daemon) to provide automatic failover between
machines.  Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Datacenter Server
offer clustering using a similar mechanism.


m> Thats why my interest goes to the raq 550, but my nowledge is
m> not so high that i now if the cpu etc can handle this, but i cant
m> think why

The CPU load is minimal for what you want to do.


--
Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to
be blocked.