Slashdot Mirror
Building a Better Webserver
msolnik writes: "The guys over at Aces' Hardware have put up a new article going over the basics, and not-so-basics, of building a new server. This is a very informative, I think everyone should devote 5 minutes and a can of Dr Pepper to this article."
But don't.
Actually a very interesting article, to be honest, in my 1 year of building webserver applications. I haven't gone through a process like this once. Usually we make a rough guess about how the application has performed (or more usually underperformed on existing servers, and just scale a percentile. As you can imagine, this is hardly realistic. Thanks for the read!
but I figure it's best to spend the money early on, get a good setup going that can handle high volumes
Throwing money at the problem is exactly the WRONG approch. You need to start by spending time PLANNING and RESEARCHING the best way to do things.
For example, if you are setting up a dynamic site like ./, which is serving 100 pages/second. It obviously needs to be dynamic, so you need a database to store all the comments in.
There are two ways to do this, one is to serve content straight out of the database, but this means that for every page you serve up, there needs to be a database query. (the database queries are the expensive part in terms of time it takes to serve a page). The other way would be to serve the articals as static pages which are generated every minute or so by a process on the database and pushed down to the web server, which serves these up as static pages.
The advantage of this is that insted of 100 database queries per minute, you end up with, maybe 10 queries per minute to populate the static pages. Sure, you site is no longer 100% dynamic, but it is a whole lot faster, and you have saved thousands of dollars to boot!
This is just one small off-the-top-of-my-head example of where PLANNING sould become way before spending any money.
...the one with a lot of mirrors.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Is it just me, or do most folks confuse these two. If a popular website only has a 9 Mbps pipe to the Internet, it doesn't matter how many Crays they have running their webserver farm, they're only going to be able to churn out 9 Mbps (minus overhead). Granted that the converse is possible... gobs of bandwidth, but a slow server... but I would imagine that bandwidth is the limiting factor of at least 99% of websites.
Actually, that's a terribly wasteful way to go. If you work on an easily-scalable infrastructure, then you can pretty much purchase capacity as it's needed, which not only frees up capital for a longer time, you end up spending a lot less, as the price of computers is always dropping, and the performance is always going up.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I am amazed at how people buy into the myth of cheap PC?s. Yes, if you are technically oriented and are not running critical applications, a cheap PC will be ok. On the other hand, I have been involved with several enterprises in which my employer insisted on going with cheap PC?s at the expense of short- and long-term productivity. One certainly cannot get a server class PC for $500, and there is few if any available for $1000. I would not say that a Blade would make a good office machine, but it seems to be a good choice for a server.