October 16th, 2003, 03:10 PM
I am currently working to help move a webserver from a managed solution to an un-managed solution. During this change, we will be moving the server to a newer hosting location and purchasing new hardware on which the webserver will run.
Currently, the setup is running on a single server solution. It uses Microsoft's Commerce Server and SQL Server, both 2000 editions.
It is an e-commerce website, which gets gets an average of 110,000 hits a day, or about 10,000+ visits each day.
There has been some debate over whether or not we should switch to a two server solution, with all of our database/application needs being offloaded onto another server. Some feel this is overkill for our particular setup.
Any ideas on the recommended power we should have behind a server such as this? I would like to see a smaller front-end server to take care of routing traffic and acting as the actual webserver. The second server would be more powerful and handle all of the DB transactions along with the functions associated with Commerce Server.
October 22nd, 2003, 01:13 AM
Not terribly experienced with this, but I believe that strictly in terms of power, you could probably get away with one server. However, splitting the functions reduces the possible problems with each, making it easier to mantain and update/upgrade both as needed. (Ie, crashing your db server wouldn't crash the whole web server if they are separate boxes). Just some basics, its really not my area.
October 22nd, 2003, 07:33 AM
While splitting the server is a good idea for disaster recovery etc it will introduce latency between the machines where there wouldn't be any on a single machine.
October 22nd, 2003, 12:48 PM
the debate goes on...
I've heard much of what I am hearing from you guys before, although I have also heard arguments from the other side of the fence.
Alot of concern is being placed over the single server setup and the major argument has to do with the DB functions. If we keep the database server on the same box as our webserver, I hear complaints that the database will suffer in performance if the webserver is busy.
It seems to me that there is a "meeting" point in which one solution is more advantageous to the other. I just haven't figured out that point on our server setup as of yet.
Thanks for the input. Any other infor would be appreciated!
October 22nd, 2003, 05:21 PM
The hardware needs (for best performance) of a DB server vs a web server are quite different. Generally, a DB server you would want to have SCSI RAID 0+1 for your harddrives, as much RAM as possible, and the size of L1 & L2 cache is more important than CPU speed.
For a web server, you can use RAM to overcome a slow hard drive and CPU speed is more important than cache size.
Optimizing hardware for the purpose can make the overall system greater than the sum of it's parts. Since you planning a move anyway, and if you plan on growth and can afford it, I'd go the multiple box route.