We have a cluster setup for one of our clients using enterprise and hardware loadbalancing. The sql servers are on internal IP's routing traffic through the secondary nic on the webservers. The site gets roughly 10-16000 visits per day with around 50,000 page views. Every page hits the database. It primarily serves images and video.
We also host the sister company of this client. They get roughly the same amount of traffic. This site is on cfmx pro with the sql server running separate on internal IP's. It is a duplicate application of the parent site. All machines are dual 3ghz xeons with 4 gigs of ram and raid1 with a hotswap. So far the only difference is administrative and equipment costs. When something goes wrong we spend far more time on the cluster than we ever would on the pro machine. There is still the availability advantage but I'm not sure the cost factor outweighs the one hour of downtime it would take to restore the site should some disaster happen. My advice would be to keep it as simple stupid as possible for as long as possible. Separate the sql, double check that you have all the performance tips in check for your cf installation and then consider clustering if it doesn't help. On a side note... I noticed you have google adwords. Has it been worth the real estate? Emmet -----Original Message----- From: Katz, Dov B (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL On the heavy site, exceeding 600k page views a day, and pages are pretty large - www.onlysimchas.com Rightnow it's stable, but it spikes to 90-95% cpu during high load times... Moving the DB will probably bring me some more stability while the internals get more renovation.. -dov -----Original Message----- From: Burns, John D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:22 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL Continuing down this line of questioning, what kind of numbers are you all experiencing when you're having to split to separate servers, go to multiple machines, etc? I'm just curious how many hits these sites are getting that you're seeing bad enough performance to warrant this. Might help me in planning ahead some. John Burns Certified Advanced ColdFusion MX Developer AI-ES Aeronautics, Web Developer -----Original Message----- From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:03 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: time to cluster, I thinkL On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:26:18 -0500, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to be blasted for this, but clustering is the last resort, > not first. I would be surprised if anyone blasts you. > 1. Do you have seperate boxes for DB and webserver? (no) This would be the first thing I'd suggest (and what everyone else seems to suggest). People need clustering for failover more than they need it for handling load, e.g., macromedia.com runs on a cluster but that's mostly to give us 100% uptime even when we're making new releases of the website (we take half the servers out of the cluster and build to those, test the apps, put them back in the cluster, pull the other half, build, test, put them back). And clustering definitely isn't "entry level" - it's expensive. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188266 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
