First, Thank you all for the great input !
Here is more output about our sites :
Some static HTML web site. Sites are generated in Lan and then rsync to DMZ.
And other with mod_perl + Postgresql Database (local)
One of our most visited site (static html) is using nealy 200 GB of
bandwidth / month
and have 545368 hists a day.
For decembre 2005 stats :
http://stats.lexum.umontreal.ca/awstats.pl?month=12&year=2005&output=main&config=www.canlii.org&lang=en&framename=index
Now we are using dual Xeon (2 Ghz), with 2,5 GB of RAM. with RAID 5 SCSI
10KRPM
Network is GB
Budget is 200K CA$
Thanks again
Eric Anderson wrote:
Marc Grimme wrote:
Hello,
I think the best way to tell what storage or infrastructure would be
the best is to know more about your current setup and what issues
with that you want to get ahead of.
For example: if you really think about using iscsi, I don't think
that SCSI or SATA drives make a big difference - depending on how
many drives you use. But if all webservers currently have locally
attached disk drives you want scale too linar with exchanging and
IDE/parallel-SCSI Bus with an network topology using Ethernet. But my
opinion is: if you have a lot of I/Os make yourself mostly
independent from the latency of an ethernet and rethink about using
Fibre-Channel with GFS.
Honestly, ethernet latencies (especially on gigabit ethernet) are
lower than fiber channel latencies, so this statement doesn't really
hold up.
If you want very fast speeds, get an iSCSI array, populate it with 15k
RPM scsi disks with big caches, max the cache out on the array, and
set it up for a RAID0+1 (or RAID10 depending on the implementor). If
you want fast speed, but not a big price, you can notch down to 10K
scsi disks, or use 15k scsi disks and a raid 5, etc, and keep notching
down until it fits your budget and needs.
I agree here though that we really need to know a few things:
- what kind of traffic is this?
- size of the files most commonly used
- total data size (how much space you need)
- budget
- demands (availability/performance/etc)
Eric
But the best advices could be made if you make your current setup and
the things you want to achieve more clearly.
Regards Marc.
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 22:01, FM wrote:
Thanks for the reply,
I read about SATA storage but we sync from lan to dmz, so there is lots
of r/w.
Michael Will wrote:
I am surprised you use SCSI drives on the storage if
you are price sensitive, usually SATA is the better
bang for the buck unless you are doing databases with
lots of small read and writes.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FM
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:34 PM
To: Redhat Cluster
Subject: WebFarm using RedHat cluster suite ?
Hello everybody,
Is redhat cluster suite (RHEL 4 ) a good candidate for a webfarm ?
My setup would be : several servers (1U AMd dual core) connected to
iscsi storage array.
Is Iscsi a good choice (SAN prices are too high for us) for hardware ?
Our network is GB.
We will have SCSI 10KRPM + read and write cache on the SCSI card +
RAID5
thanks !
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
