[theforum] Results (was Re: RFV: ServerMatrix Hosting for l.e.o)
David Kaufman
david at gigawatt.com
Wed Jun 9 16:02:58 CDT 2004
David A. Ulevitch <davidu at everydns.net> wrote:
> My two cents:
>
> 1) We should be getting the two smaller servers. Even a low power
> machine can handle the load of both servers in an emergency, maybe
> not at peak performance, but still be online. It is the most flexible
> bang-for-yer-buck. And let's not forget, boxes are mostly
> over-powered these days, imho.
>
> So my vote is +1 on 2x$49/month.
>
> 2) There is no number two; there was going to be but I snip'ed it.
>
> :)
>
> -davidu
i didn't know there was a new vote, but i agree. i'd rather be spending
$100 a month for TWO celeron servers, with two 80 gig drives, two ip
addresses, two power supplies, etc, than $100 for one beefy P4 with a few
more megahertz, but only one drive, just the one power supply, and so on.
to me, twice the fault tolerance is worth *much* more than twice the CPU
cycles. and David U. should know, because he's why evolt has multi-way
fault tolerant DNS service spanning the globe, that can probably survive an
extinction-level event that would wipe out the human race :-)
so, should there BE a new vote, my vote, too would be
+1 on 2x$49/month.
and building both boxes such that they can both do both jobs (l.e.o and
w.e.o services), whether it's in a load balancing configuration, or the
simpler method of each being a failover and warm-backup of the other.
but that's just me. cuz i'm the cautious type...
-dave
More information about the theforum
mailing list