RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
> -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. FirstNight.org sees some nasty traffic for three or four days a year (peaking in the high hundred-thousands of requests). I wouldn't mind having a second server for just those days, but it's really too expensive. As it is however that traffic IS handled on a shared server using CrystalTech's $26/month account. These aren't high-powered servers either (they're good boxes, not god boxes). But asking this it's nearly impossible to offer a meaningful answer. My application is actually pretty slow (I do a lot of metrics tracking and the pages are relatively large). The same box could easily handle for or five the times the traffic from a more static site or a tenth of the traffic for a more complex site. Jim Davis ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188347 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
Just my two cents.. We currently run couple of sites that do about.. constant 7Mbps on single CPU 3GB RAM CFMX Pro Server. The system crahses out at around 18-20Mbps (days after Thanksgiving) DB is on a seperate box and seperate nic.. When doing cost estimates keep in mind the cost for upgrades to the firewall.. .. just updated.. to Cisco Pix 100Mbps and RackSpace is charging extra $360.00 month.. (on top of $250 before) For dedicated hosting I higly recommend RackSpace.. nice tech support and good turnaround on updates and new installs. You can also look into moving images and static content off the system.. might free up some resources.. For going to load balancing there is no magic number.. I've seen some application run at 75Mbps through output.. (MOD Perl - Cache - SharedMem - Custom Compiled Apache at 2048 users) and seen others crash at 1mbps.. Clean up the code.. off put as much processing to the DB as you can.. use StoredProcs, Cfqueryparam.. use good coding practice.. etc.. etc.. -- Regards Farooq Emmet McGovern wrote: > Thanks... I always wondered. I own a couple of hi traffic travel portals > for our area and was hesitant to give advertising space up for something > like that. > > e > > -Original Message- > From: Katz, Dov B (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:18 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL > > With a lot of traffic (At least for my website), it practically pays for > dedicated hosting. > ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188287 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
Advertising Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
I've found that its worth it based on size and placement. I have the HoF site set to 760 wide content with the remainder as ads. These are seen by most without getting in the way of content. > Thanks... I always wondered. I own a couple of hi traffic travel portals > for our area and was hesitant to give advertising space up for something > like that. > > e > > -Original Message- > From: Katz, Dov B (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:18 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL > > With a lot of traffic (At least for my website), it practically pays for > dedicated hosting. > On a side note... > I noticed you have google adwords. Has it been worth the real estate? ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188285 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
Thanks... I always wondered. I own a couple of hi traffic travel portals for our area and was hesitant to give advertising space up for something like that. e -Original Message- From: Katz, Dov B (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:18 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL With a lot of traffic (At least for my website), it practically pays for dedicated hosting. -Original Message- From: Emmet McGovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:08 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL 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:4:188276 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
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
With a lot of traffic (At least for my website), it practically pays for dedicated hosting. >>> On a side note... I noticed you have google adwords. Has it been worth the real estate? Emmet NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188277 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
With a lot of traffic (At least for my website), it practically pays for dedicated hosting. -Original Message- From: Emmet McGovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:08 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: time to cluster, I thinkL 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 Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188270 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
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
In addition, a default install of SQL Server, for instance, will pre-allocate just about all system resources to the SQL Server instance or balance them out among multiple instances. This provides performance benefits over a model in which resources have to be allocated on the fly. >From my experience, it actually takes quite a bit of work to convince SQL Server that it's not the only application on the server. In particular, watching SQL Server duke it out with the Sun JVM over memory is not a pretty sight. Ben Rogers http://www.c4.net v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 > -Original Message- > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:42 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: time to cluster, I thinkL > > Burns, John D wrote: > > 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? > > It isn't so much about having to split, but wanting to split. I > don't want to run a database server on the server that also runs > the application server and the webserver: > - I like the security of an extra layer in front of my database > - I want issues to be isolated in one tier, instead of being on a > machine that does many things that influence eachother > - I want to properly dimension hardware for each tier, without > having to oversize it because it has to be good at everything > > Jochem > > ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188269 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
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
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
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
Burns, John D wrote: > 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? It isn't so much about having to split, but wanting to split. I don't want to run a database server on the server that also runs the application server and the webserver: - I like the security of an extra layer in front of my database - I want issues to be isolated in one tier, instead of being on a machine that does many things that influence eachother - I want to properly dimension hardware for each tier, without having to oversize it because it has to be good at everything Jochem ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188263 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
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:4:188262 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
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:4:188260 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
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
Why do you want to cluster? If it is for reliability, then that is ok. But if you need speed, you may be best off just putting the IIS/CF on one computer and the MSSQL2K on the other computer, since you already have one license of each. The computers are cheaper than the licenses. If you do it your way, you will need another license of each. One other possibility if you have a heavy load of video or graphic or PDFs, is to set up a 3rd server, hopefully linux to save on that OS license, just to serve the graphic and static stuff. When I first started, I made the mistake of having everything on one server.. IIS/ SQL server and REAL video server. The real video got too busy and slowed down everything. What I do now is have the Video on a separate server (hosted elsewhere:), so if it gets bogged down, it doesn't affect the speed of the website itself. Al >Right now I have 1 CFMX6.1 Pro license and a single IIS box, sharing >MSSQL2K with CF over 2 1Ghz processors, and a gig of ram. > ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188258 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
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 Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188256 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
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
Katz, Dov B (IT) wrote: > Sorry for not making clearer My problem now is heavy load Moving the database to a separate box from the application / webserver would be the first step. > general risk of availability by having a SPoF. It is better to have a SPoF with 99.8% uptime then 2 systems with 95% uptime each :-) Jochem ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188241 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
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
IMHO I think the first step, assuming you only have a budget for 1 extra machine, would be to move your MSSQL installation onto a separate box to free up some more resources for CF. This'll save you a bit too as you should have most of the software licenses you need too. After you've done that you could look at adding extra CF servers and hardware/software load balancing in. Perhaps it'd be best to have the busy site on it's own high spec. shiny new box and keep the quiet sites on the existing server. My 2p worth, Ant ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188239 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
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
I'm going to be blasted for this, but clustering is the last resort, not first. 1. Do you have seperate boxes for DB and webserver? (no) 2. Are they maxed in ram? (probably) 3. Are they peaked? (?) 4. Is your network set up tight? (no as it's one server) Just moving the SQL to a new box will extend the life/power of your setup. The box you have now looks good, but is taxed by non-web serving operations. > I'm thinking about clustering I read some of the articles on this > (bpurcells, and others, etc) and I'm still a bit confused about which is > the best way for "Entry Level / simple" clustering. > > Right now I have 1 CFMX6.1 Pro license and a single IIS box, sharing > MSSQL2K with CF over 2 1Ghz processors, and a gig of ram. > > This is what i was thinking would solve the problem for me, in theory. > How do I get this idea off the ground, and how would you do things > differently, assuming there's a shoestring budget for this.?? > > I'd want 2 machines each running IIS and CFMX6.1. Both IIS's would > share both CFMX instances. Assume I have 4-5 cf apps running on virtual > hostnames on the web servers, but only one is massive > > Here are my questions. Assuming I have windows 2K servers, how can I > Get uploaded files to propagate across both machines in near real time? > > Do they share a third machine's MSSQL 2k? or do I set up 2 sql servers, > one on each box, with replication? (Can both machines push replication > to each other, or does one always have to be the master?) > > Please advise on a low cost, (hopefully software-based) 2 machine > clustering setup with CF, MSSQL and IIS. > > Thanks! > > > NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender > does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. > > > > ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188238 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
RE: time to cluster, I thinkL
Sorry for not making clearer My problem now is heavy load, and general risk of availability by having a SPoF. Both would be mitigated by a more load balanced, redundant system... -Original Message- From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:13 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: time to cluster, I thinkL Katz, Dov B (IT) wrote: > I'm thinking about clustering I read some of the articles on this > (bpurcells, and others, etc) and I'm still a bit confused about which > is the best way for "Entry Level / simple" clustering. > > Right now I have 1 CFMX6.1 Pro license and a single IIS box, sharing > MSSQL2K with CF over 2 1Ghz processors, and a gig of ram. > > This is what i was thinking would solve the problem for me, in theory. Which problem? Jochem ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188237 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: time to cluster, I thinkL
Katz, Dov B (IT) wrote: > I'm thinking about clustering I read some of the articles on this > (bpurcells, and others, etc) and I'm still a bit confused about which is > the best way for "Entry Level / simple" clustering. > > Right now I have 1 CFMX6.1 Pro license and a single IIS box, sharing > MSSQL2K with CF over 2 1Ghz processors, and a gig of ram. > > This is what i was thinking would solve the problem for me, in theory. Which problem? Jochem ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188234 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=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
time to cluster, I thinkL
I'm thinking about clustering I read some of the articles on this (bpurcells, and others, etc) and I'm still a bit confused about which is the best way for "Entry Level / simple" clustering. Right now I have 1 CFMX6.1 Pro license and a single IIS box, sharing MSSQL2K with CF over 2 1Ghz processors, and a gig of ram. This is what i was thinking would solve the problem for me, in theory. How do I get this idea off the ground, and how would you do things differently, assuming there's a shoestring budget for this.?? I'd want 2 machines each running IIS and CFMX6.1. Both IIS's would share both CFMX instances. Assume I have 4-5 cf apps running on virtual hostnames on the web servers, but only one is massive Here are my questions. Assuming I have windows 2K servers, how can I Get uploaded files to propagate across both machines in near real time? Do they share a third machine's MSSQL 2k? or do I set up 2 sql servers, one on each box, with replication? (Can both machines push replication to each other, or does one always have to be the master?) Please advise on a low cost, (hopefully software-based) 2 machine clustering setup with CF, MSSQL and IIS. Thanks! NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:188223 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
