dedicated hosting question...

DJB

Hi,

Have to post this here since the hosting forum is closed. I need some advice on what I should get for dedicated hosting.

I've got a web based application (ASP and MS SQL Database). At the end of the first year I anticipate having 1000-1500 users of the application, which would be accessed on a daily basis. Now, what I am wondering is the set up I should get in terms of servers and hosting. Here's what I am thinking:


Option 1:

---

- P4 Server for the SQL Database
- P4 Server for the application
- Can add multiple 'application' servers as the customers grow and access the same sql database server
- daily backup service, security, support, etc. from host
- going to need sql server x 1 and windows 2003 x 2 to start

- Any downside to this setup? Is this the best route to take in the long run?


Option 2:

---

- P4 Server housing the sql database and the application.
- When customers grow, add new 'application' server and move existing customers on to it. Then add 'application' servers as in option 1
- daily backup service, security, support, etc. from host
- going to need sql server x 1 and windows 2003 x 1 to start

- What would the downside to this be? Obviously running the database and the application on the one server, might put a strain on it!! But initially, customer base will be 0 and will be built up over time. The benefits of this option is the cost.

Any other ideas or options that I should take into account?

I'd appreciate any advice anyone can give on this. I know a lot of hosting companies post in here so anyone of you that do post with 'a relevant answer', leave your link in the message and I'll contact you directly for a quote. [ Mods - Amend that last bit if you don't like it ]

Thanks in advance!

Dave

dahamsta

It all depends on how accurate this statement is:

DJB wrote:

At the end of the first year I anticipate having 1000-1500 users of the application

My experience is that people tend to overestimate the traffic they're going to get, plus of course growth is a factor too. If you're giving away free money, then you're going to want the first option, but in most cases I'd save a few quid and go the latter.

adam

steve-hosting36

Hi Dave,

I agree with dahamsta, start with a fast P4 (HT) or a single Xeon based server running both app and db. Once you start seeing traffic / returns, you can relatively easily add another unit to handle the app or db, and then add more app servers as you require. It all depends on the planned traffic/user levels, and how demanding the app or db are likely to be on a server. Just ensure you get a flexible service that will allow you to move the functions to different boxes as yuo grow.

HTH, Stephen

http://www.servers365.ie

DJB

dahamsta wrote:

It all depends on how accurate this statement is:

My experience is that people tend to overestimate the traffic they're going to get, plus of course growth is a factor too. If you're giving away free money, then you're going to want the first option, but in most cases I'd save a few quid and go the latter.

adam

Good point and it is hard to estimate how many customers. There will be a seperate website for advertising the service and this will be hosted on a different website. Only paid customers will get access to the servers with the application, e.g. server1.mydomain.com for first 1000 and server2.mydomain.com for second 1000. Plan is to have a cut off point for server 1 so that when we reach a certain amount of customers, we will start using server 2.

In terms of how realistic the 1000-1500 users is, I think it is realistic and could possibly be more. I can't have it any less!!

Thanks for the reply...

Dave

steve-hosting36

Depending on the app, you can cluster or load balance multiple app servers, meaning you wouldnt need to 'hard' enforce a number of customers per server, you would let the load balancer distribute customers based on how the app servers were performing at any given time. That also means you can survive a failure without service impact.

Third_Echelon

What type of load volume is going to be placed on the system?

What type of application is it? Shopping-Cart, HR etc. Enterprise apps are usually a lot more intensive on system resources. The fact that it is web based though will remove some of this 'enterprise load' though.

Will there be long running SQL statements? This can place extra load on the system.

How many hours per day will a typical user be using the system?

Will it be a constant load from users or a 'now and again' type of usage.

If you are talking about a high volume of data load and heavy usage, go with the first option. Plan for the future now.

I've seen too many times the 'option 2' approach being implemented starting off and people saying, 'oh yeah sure we'll add on as it gets bigger'..

It mostly leads to problems if you are not realistic about your load and its better to get any issues out of the way now rather than later...

If downtime is an issue and you've got the cash, a cluster fail-over solution for the db server is advisable....

DJB

steve-hosting36 wrote:

Depending on the app, you can cluster or load balance multiple app servers, meaning you wouldnt need to 'hard' enforce a number of customers per server, you would let the load balancer distribute customers based on how the app servers were performing at any given time. That also means you can survive a failure without service impact.

Indeed, and I will probably go this way. I had forgotten about load balancing and it might work ideal I think. I'd need to check a few things first with the application. One concern is that there is the ability to upload files but if they get uploaded and saved on server1, what happens if I log in and am pushed to server2, will load balancing affect the app in this way?

By forcing a certain amount of customers to use server1, all their data will be in the db and their files on that server and same goes for the next set of customers on server2. I see advantages and draw backs to both but I will have to check application requirements in a load balanced environment cause I would like to go that way! Cheeurs, Steve

steve-hosting36

You can load balance just user connections, and set all ftp, remote desktop, etc, to use a nominated 'primary' server. The other machines in the load balanced config simply synch with the primary. Load balancing will also be session aware, so once a user starts talking to server 2, say, the LB will ensure they keep talking to server2 unless it fails.

Load balancing these days is actually quite cost effective and not as complicated as it sounds.

flamegrill

Hi,

I'd agree with Steve, Load balancing on windows is quite easy to achieve on the OS itself. Also it is dooable via small hardware units at reasonable costs.

You could run the app and sql on one server and then add another App server later giving you two. Downside to this is that the SQL server has to be Net facing, which in some cases can case nightmares for some pople, typically its not a problem.

Start with a good speced machine and add other machines as you need.

SQL server is expensive, you could actually use a shared SQL database, some of the hosting companies in Ireland can do this for you, and then migrate when the time comes, again cutting the inital start up costs.

Paul

steve-hosting36

You can also 'lease' MS SQL for about 250 euro a month from SPLA hosts, without having to buy.

flamegrill

Aye, tis quite expensive over time.

Can also buy "cheap" licences off Ebay

But yeah thats defo an option from the get go to save costs.

Paul

steve-hosting36

Alternative is drop 5k up front 250 a month will take you 20 months to spend the same amount.

flamegrill

here would be the plan of attack:

first quater:

1 x server, decent spec, redundant power/disks. cost ya 300 ~ a month
1 x SQL db shared, cost ya 50-100 euro a month depending on disk space required

second quater:

Assess traffic and load issues, possibly take on a leased SQL licence and put it on the App server

third quater:

Again assess traffic/needs.

options - add an app server
or

- add an SQL server and move the licence from the app server to the new DB server

Forth quater:

Have 2 x HA front end servers with 1 DB back end

From here the costs are minimal, just add front end servers from here on in.

Hope this helps.

Paul

steve-hosting36

Sounds plam flamegrill, but potential for disruption too, it all depends on the scaling planned / anticipated and budget available.

flamegrill

Aye, but you can jump to any point at the start.

it's basically a road map to show the possible steps, and If i were him I'd jump in at 3 or 4 myself. But this could be costly enough.

So it all depends on planning/budgets.

Paul

DJB

flamegrill wrote:

Aye, but you can jump to any point at the start.

it's basically a road map to show the possible steps, and If i were him I'd jump in at 3 or 4 myself. But this could be costly enough.

So it all depends on planning/budgets.

Paul

Thanks for the advice. You've given some good points. What I will most likely be doing is going for the following:

3 x P4 Servers (2 app server and 1 db server)
1 x Load Balanced for the 2 app servers

I'm getting a good price for it and I think it's better to have the redundancy there, even if I won't be using it for the moment. The budget allows for it so I think we should start as we mean to go on...

Thanks for advice and comments all.

Regards,

Dave

flamegrill

Remember to Shop around