RE: [cobalt-users] need advice more details

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

DK> Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:43:15 -0400
DK> From: Dan Kriwitsky


DK> That I'll leave to those more expert in other types of servers. You

3Ware Escalade = IDE RAID = good bang for the buck

Modern IDE drives are fast enough to handle what he wants to do.
Keep in mind that they'd be combined in an array... I'd suggest
four-drive RAID 10 or five-drive RAID 5 with a hot spare.

I still prefer (and usually run) SCSI, but IDE drives definitely
have improved.  For large quantities of inexpensive RAID, running
IDE is a very viable option.

I'm also a bit confused... is it 200 * 10 MB = 2 GB total, or 2
GB * 200 = 400 GB total?  Can the original poster please clarify?
(His/her previous post leads me to believe that the latter is the
case...)


DK> could probably find a fairly inexpensive windows machine for just FTP.

Yes, but... *shudder*


DK> (But that's a discussion for another list.) Someone suggested a server
DK> located at the client site. That might be a good place for the FTP

The higher the bandwidth requirement, the more I'd suggest
putting the server(s) at the client location.  They'll have to
download the files no matter what... why waste bandwidth in both
directions at another site?  It's also nice to have the files
locally for fast copying. :-)

Also, is the 10 GB/mo total, or multiply that by 200?  If moving
2 TB/mo, it's definitely time to look at 8x E1 or half an E3, and
to let the servers live at the client site.


DK> server while renting or owning a colo RaQ somewhere for just serving
DK> pages, as it's designed. If it's at the client site, they don't need to
DK> deal with downloads and they can just do some regular backups of the
DK> client files to tape or CD.

I agree.


DK> I'm sure there are some fairly simple server setups if all the dedicated
DK> server is going to do is handle FTP and not serve any web pages, email,
DK> DNS, etc. 

If serving Web pages, I'd recommend putting the content on a
different spindle.  Likewise, mail spool should live elsewhere.

Frankly, I strongly believe in separating Web, email, database,
DNS, et cetera onto multiple servers, anyway.


DK> > But i like the idee of putting it one more servers so i dont 
DK> > have a big special build server for this client.
DK> 
DK> I don't think it will need to be too big.

CPU requirements will be minimal.  With good disk and NIC, it's
very easy to push bits around.

In fact, I've written an unoptimized HTMLish parser that munches
5 MB/sec of "typical" pages on a PII/266, including building the
tree.  Once I tune the algorithm, use a better memory allocator,
and get down and dirty using assembler, past experience leads me
to believe I'll easily double that performance.  Run it on an
actual server, and watch what happens. :-)

Spitting files across the network (or receiving them) is much,
much easier.  Open, read, close, send.  Given proper disk array,
I'd hazard a guess that even a RaQ3 could handle a full E3.

If 400 GB of disk are necessary, disk space will be the limiting
factor on selecting machines.  One or two machines with big IDE
arrays will be much more cost-effective than a handful of RaQ550.


--
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.