Heavy duty linux server - Networking

This is a discussion on Heavy duty linux server - Networking ; I have a website that is getting decent traffic and ALSO performs complicated computations (solving equations, rendering images etc). Right now I have just one server, which does handle the load OK, most of the time. My question is about ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Heavy duty linux server

  1. Heavy duty linux server

    I have a website that is getting decent traffic and ALSO performs
    complicated computations (solving equations, rendering images etc).

    Right now I have just one server, which does handle the load OK, most
    of the time.

    My question is about getting a second box. It would become the main
    server, and the current one would become a hot backup. (with mysql
    replication etc).

    The main rationale is that I would suffer a bad embarrassment and bad
    loss of business if my main server dies.

    Here, my thinking is that I should get the baddest box possible, maybe
    just a notch below that.

    My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    disk.

    My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.

    The alternative is to get one less decent computer, and work harder on
    having both share the load -- and on being able to turn any one of
    them off.

    I will appreciate some practical experiences here.

    i

  2. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    In comp.os.linux.networking Ignoramus7931 wrote:
    > Will 32 bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no
    > process could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with
    > me.


    Why limit yourself to a 32-bit linux kernel?

    rick jones
    --
    oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  3. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    Ignoramus7931 wrote:

    > My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    > bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    > could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.


    Yep -- my current desktop uses two Pentium III processors, and the desktop
    I'm building now to replace it uses two dual core Xeons.

    The standard Linux kernel doesn't support more than 4 GB of RAM, but there
    is a compile-time option to allow (IIRC) up to 64 GB. Most distributions
    ship with a pre-compiled kernel that has this option enabled, but it
    probably won't be installed by default.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

    * = I'm getting there!

  4. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    Ignoramus7931 wrote:
    > I have a website that is getting decent traffic and ALSO performs
    > complicated computations (solving equations, rendering images etc).
    >
    > Right now I have just one server, which does handle the load OK, most
    > of the time.
    >
    > My question is about getting a second box. It would become the main
    > server, and the current one would become a hot backup. (with mysql
    > replication etc).
    >
    > The main rationale is that I would suffer a bad embarrassment and bad
    > loss of business if my main server dies.
    >
    > Here, my thinking is that I should get the baddest box possible, maybe
    > just a notch below that.
    >
    > My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    > cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    > arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    > disk.
    >
    > My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    > bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    > could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.


    I have a box with two hyperthreaded 3.06GHz Xeon processors and 8GBytes of
    RAM. It is presently running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES (to be upgraded
    to RHEL5 ES when it comes out). I am running the 2.4.21-47.0.1.ELhugemem
    kernel, and the relevant part of the .config file for compiling the kernel is:

    # CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM is not set
    # CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set
    CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y
    CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y
    CONFIG_HIGHPTE=y
    CONFIG_X86_PAE=y
    CONFIG_HIGHIO=y
    CONFIG_X86_4G=y
    CONFIG_X86_SWITCH_PAGETABLES=y
    CONFIG_X86_4G_VM_LAYOUT=y
    CONFIG_X86_UACCESS_INDIRECT=y
    CONFIG_X86_HIGH_ENTRY=y
    # CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION is not set
    CONFIG_MTRR=y
    CONFIG_SMP=y
    # CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS_0 is not set
    CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS_2=y
    CONFIG_SHARE_RUNQUEUE=y
    CONFIG_MAX_NR_SIBLINGS=2
    CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC=y
    CONFIG_X86_NUMA=y
    # CONFIG_X86_NUMAQ is not set
    CONFIG_X86_SUMMIT=y
    CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC=y
    CONFIG_HAVE_DEC_LOCK=y

    IIRC, the only thing I changed in here was
    CONFIG_X86_4G=y
    so that a single process can get the entire 4GBytes of virtual (and real)
    memory space -- and the kernel can get one too if it wants to. You might not
    need to do this and just run their normal hugemen kernel.
    >
    > The alternative is to get one less decent computer, and work harder on
    > having both share the load -- and on being able to turn any one of
    > them off.
    >
    > I will appreciate some practical experiences here.
    >
    > i



    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 22:05:01 up 21 days, 10:29, 3 users, load average: 4.24, 4.30, 4.15

  5. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:14:14 GMT, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    > Ignoramus7931 wrote:
    >> I have a website that is getting decent traffic and ALSO performs
    >> complicated computations (solving equations, rendering images etc).
    >>
    >> Right now I have just one server, which does handle the load OK, most
    >> of the time.
    >>
    >> My question is about getting a second box. It would become the main
    >> server, and the current one would become a hot backup. (with mysql
    >> replication etc).
    >>
    >> The main rationale is that I would suffer a bad embarrassment and bad
    >> loss of business if my main server dies.
    >>
    >> Here, my thinking is that I should get the baddest box possible, maybe
    >> just a notch below that.
    >>
    >> My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    >> cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    >> arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    >> disk.
    >>
    >> My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    >> bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    >> could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.

    >
    > I have a box with two hyperthreaded 3.06GHz Xeon processors and 8GBytes of
    > RAM. It is presently running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES (to be upgraded
    > to RHEL5 ES when it comes out). I am running the 2.4.21-47.0.1.ELhugemem
    > kernel, and the relevant part of the .config file for compiling the kernel is:


    JD, just to clarify, if I was to switch to 64 bit linux, then there
    are no special compile options to enable big RAM, right? I am
    thinking, still, what linux to use for this, perhaps RHEL (CentOS)
    would work for me.

    i

    > # CONFIG_NOHIGHMEM is not set
    > # CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set
    > CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G=y
    > CONFIG_HIGHMEM=y
    > CONFIG_HIGHPTE=y
    > CONFIG_X86_PAE=y
    > CONFIG_HIGHIO=y
    > CONFIG_X86_4G=y
    > CONFIG_X86_SWITCH_PAGETABLES=y
    > CONFIG_X86_4G_VM_LAYOUT=y
    > CONFIG_X86_UACCESS_INDIRECT=y
    > CONFIG_X86_HIGH_ENTRY=y
    > # CONFIG_MATH_EMULATION is not set
    > CONFIG_MTRR=y
    > CONFIG_SMP=y
    > # CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS_0 is not set
    > CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS_2=y
    > CONFIG_SHARE_RUNQUEUE=y
    > CONFIG_MAX_NR_SIBLINGS=2
    > CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC=y
    > CONFIG_X86_NUMA=y
    > # CONFIG_X86_NUMAQ is not set
    > CONFIG_X86_SUMMIT=y
    > CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC=y
    > CONFIG_HAVE_DEC_LOCK=y
    >
    > IIRC, the only thing I changed in here was
    > CONFIG_X86_4G=y
    > so that a single process can get the entire 4GBytes of virtual (and real)
    > memory space -- and the kernel can get one too if it wants to. You might not
    > need to do this and just run their normal hugemen kernel.
    >>
    >> The alternative is to get one less decent computer, and work harder on
    >> having both share the load -- and on being able to turn any one of
    >> them off.
    >>
    >> I will appreciate some practical experiences here.
    >>
    >> i

    >
    >


  6. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    Ignoramus7931 wrote:

    > How stable is 64 bit stuff?


    Rock solid -- Linux has been doing 64-bit since before it was a twinkle in
    Intel's eye -- it's supported Alpha and other such 64-bit platforms for
    ages.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

    * = I'm getting there!

  7. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On 3月10日, 上午4时39分, Ignoramus7931
    wrote:
    > I have a website that is getting decent traffic and ALSO performs
    > complicated computations (solving equations, rendering images etc).
    >
    > Right now I have just one server, which does handle the load OK, most
    > of the time.
    >
    > My question is about getting a second box. It would become the main
    > server, and the current one would become a hot backup. (with mysql
    > replication etc).
    >
    > The main rationale is that I would suffer a bad embarrassment and bad
    > loss of business if my main server dies.
    >
    > Here, my thinking is that I should get the baddest box possible, maybe
    > just a notch below that.
    >
    > My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    > cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    > arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    > disk.
    >
    > My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    > bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    > could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.
    >
    > The alternative is to get one less decent computer, and work harder on
    > having both share the load -- and on being able to turn any one of
    > them off.
    >
    > I will appreciate some practical experiences here.
    >
    > i


    Good!
    http://fy4.net/ad.html


  8. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    In ,
    Ignoramus7931 mentions:
    >The alternative is to get one less decent computer, and work harder on
    >having both share the load -- and on being able to turn any one of
    >them off.


    This might actually be your best plan. It's quite difficult though,
    particularly where shared sessions are used and that sort of thing.

    >I will appreciate some practical experiences here.


    I've done the load balancing before. It's work, but it's worth it. Basically,
    you need to think of everything as a /service/ as opposed to a /server/ with
    each service having multiple hosts to handle it. The other thing to do,
    is place front-end apache servers that pass given URL's off to machines
    that are configured for that specific task.

    For example, a mod_perl or java servlet engine might be expensive in terms
    of resource consumption, a waste for serving a static image. So, you'd have
    apache (or other web server) configured bare minimum, forwarding the URL's
    off to machines that are better able to handle the content. (probably, it'd
    handle static content right away but pass the rendering tasks to machines with
    rendering, others to databases, etc..)

    Configuration in this situation is a /nightmare/ you want some kind of directory
    some place (I used LDAP when I did it) some place where you can keep all your
    configs in one place.

    When I did it, we had real machines...

    These days, I would seriously consider getting a moderate heavy-weight box,
    partitioning it into multiple virtual machines (UML, XEN, etc..) and then
    adjusting the virtual machine(s) for the task. That way, you can basically copy
    the whole machine, take it offline (or diagnose it, etc..) and put it back into
    service. Adding new *physical* machines as they become needed, and you can do
    easier testing.

    If you do this, you can have fallbacks, which is *nice* but, it's a LOT of work,
    something as simple as writing to a $!@% file suddenly become a major complex
    operation.

    Jamie
    --
    http://www.geniegate.com Custom web programming
    Perl * Java * UNIX User Management Solutions

  9. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:31:06 +0000, Toby A Inkster wrote:

    > Rock solid -- Linux has been doing 64-bit since before it was a twinkle in
    > Intel's eye -- it's supported Alpha and other such 64-bit platforms for
    > ages.



    Just be aware that 3rd party support for 64 bit is often lacking. I don't
    even know if Sybase has a version available, for example, and Oracle
    claims to have one but I found numerous 32 bit dependencies.

    I should have taken the hint when I learned that the installer of the 64
    bit version was itself 32 bit. But I guess I'm slow . And,
    unfortunately, support was of very little help. They've apparently no
    list of RPMs that are required in 32 bit, so their advise was "try until
    something breaks".

    Their API also has components (libraries) available only in 32 bit. That
    would have cascaded to PHP, then Apache...

    Fortunately, there's a second Oracle library that is available in 64 bit
    form.

    Anyway, before venturing into 64 bit land again (which I agree is
    rock-solid on Linux itself) I'd double-check any third-party components I
    needed for the machine.

    - Andrew


  10. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    >
    > My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    > cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    > arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    > disk.
    >


    I noticed that one thing nobody mentioned was that a reliable server is not
    the same thing as a really fast cpu/gamer rig. You usually do not want the
    fastest thing on the block. You want something that is slower and runs
    cooler.

    Another thing is remember is because it is not a gamer machine a low cost
    supported video card is fine.

    I have read reports that while a server is "re-building" a replacement raid
    drive it gets quite busy and runs slower.

    Hardware-based Duplex or Mirror is cheaper (fewer HD's) than Raid5. It also
    doesn't depend on the Os as much (or at all).

    Hope this helps,
    Tom Miller
    --
    Try http://www.ChatNFiles.com which has a new telnet chat system and a HUGE
    file downloads collection. Ecard: http://bccs.chatnfiles.com/ecard3.htm



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  11. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Tom Miller wrote:

    >>
    >> My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    >> cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    >> arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    >> disk.
    >>

    >
    > I noticed that one thing nobody mentioned was that a reliable server is not
    > the same thing as a really fast cpu/gamer rig. You usually do not want the
    > fastest thing on the block. You want something that is slower and runs
    > cooler.
    >
    > Another thing is remember is because it is not a gamer machine a low cost
    > supported video card is fine.
    >
    > I have read reports that while a server is "re-building" a replacement raid
    > drive it gets quite busy and runs slower.
    >
    > Hardware-based Duplex or Mirror is cheaper (fewer HD's) than Raid5. It also
    > doesn't depend on the Os as much (or at all).
    >
    > Hope this helps,
    > Tom Miller


    A good clarification to make! Huge failure points are system fans. If you
    can run your system cool enough to get around using them, you can
    substantially increase reliability. I personally prefer the high
    availability approach of backup hardware (Two PSUs, two CPUs, two
    identical RAID arrays, etc.)

    --Sir Jackery

  12. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:05:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:31:06 +0000, Toby A Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> Rock solid -- Linux has been doing 64-bit since before it was a twinkle in
    >> Intel's eye -- it's supported Alpha and other such 64-bit platforms for
    >> ages.

    >
    >
    > Just be aware that 3rd party support for 64 bit is often lacking. I don't
    > even know if Sybase has a version available, for example, and Oracle
    > claims to have one but I found numerous 32 bit dependencies.


    I use MySQL, so that;'s not a problem. As long as perl, apache and
    mysql run (including numerous perl modules that I need), I will be fine.

    > I should have taken the hint when I learned that the installer of the 64
    > bit version was itself 32 bit. But I guess I'm slow . And,
    > unfortunately, support was of very little help. They've apparently no
    > list of RPMs that are required in 32 bit, so their advise was "try until
    > something breaks".
    >
    > Their API also has components (libraries) available only in 32 bit. That
    > would have cascaded to PHP, then Apache...
    >
    > Fortunately, there's a second Oracle library that is available in 64 bit
    > form.
    >
    > Anyway, before venturing into 64 bit land again (which I agree is
    > rock-solid on Linux itself) I'd double-check any third-party components I
    > needed for the machine.


    OK... I hope that I am not forgetting anything... I will think very
    hard about it.

    i

  13. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:10:10 -0600, Tom Miller wrote:
    >>
    >> My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    >> cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    >> arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    >> disk.
    >>

    >
    > I noticed that one thing nobody mentioned was that a reliable server is not
    > the same thing as a really fast cpu/gamer rig. You usually do not want the
    > fastest thing on the block. You want something that is slower and runs
    > cooler.


    Very wise.

    > Another thing is remember is because it is not a gamer machine a low cost
    > supported video card is fine.


    Absolutely, I want the cheap, simple, well supported video card.

    > I have read reports that while a server is "re-building" a replacement raid
    > drive it gets quite busy and runs slower.
    >
    > Hardware-based Duplex or Mirror is cheaper (fewer HD's) than Raid5. It also
    > doesn't depend on the Os as much (or at all).
    >


    I have to learn about RAID5... Perhaps, with more than one server,
    raid is not as essential.

    i

  14. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    Ignoramus28652 wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:10:10 -0600, Tom Miller wrote:
    >>> My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    >>> cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    >>> arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    >>> disk.
    >>>

    >> I noticed that one thing nobody mentioned was that a reliable server is not
    >> the same thing as a really fast cpu/gamer rig. You usually do not want the
    >> fastest thing on the block. You want something that is slower and runs
    >> cooler.

    >
    > Very wise.
    >
    >> Another thing is remember is because it is not a gamer machine a low cost
    >> supported video card is fine.

    >
    > Absolutely, I want the cheap, simple, well supported video card.
    >
    >> I have read reports that while a server is "re-building" a replacement raid
    >> drive it gets quite busy and runs slower.
    >>
    >> Hardware-based Duplex or Mirror is cheaper (fewer HD's) than Raid5. It also
    >> doesn't depend on the Os as much (or at all).
    >>

    >
    > I have to learn about RAID5... Perhaps, with more than one server,
    > raid is not as essential.


    Whilst RAID does improve performance a bit, its real value is hot
    swappable disks..on a 24x7 system under heavy use a lot of disks CAN
    fail in under 2 years..


    If you have an SQL system running, you can achieve remarkable
    performance gains by
    - correct attention to indexes
    - putting the log file on a separate disk
    - putting the sql data on a separate disk

    And indeed often more memory is the key to improved performance - most
    big databases are NOT CPU bound at all.

    You should do a thorough investigation of what is actually causing slow
    performance before developing a strategy to cope with it.


    I vividly recall adding some indexes and rewriting a particular report
    go the run time from 37 minutes to a shade over 10 seconds.





    >
    > i


  15. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

    > Ignoramus28652 wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:10:10 -0600, Tom Miller
    >> wrote:
    >>>> My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    >>>> cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    >>>> arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    >>>> disk.
    >>>>
    >>> I noticed that one thing nobody mentioned was that a reliable server is
    >>> not the same thing as a really fast cpu/gamer rig. You usually do not
    >>> want the fastest thing on the block. You want something that is slower
    >>> and runs cooler.

    >>
    >> Very wise.
    >>
    >>> Another thing is remember is because it is not a gamer machine a low cost
    >>> supported video card is fine.

    >>
    >> Absolutely, I want the cheap, simple, well supported video card.
    >>> I have read reports that while a server is "re-building" a replacement
    >>> raid drive it gets quite busy and runs slower.
    >>>
    >>> Hardware-based Duplex or Mirror is cheaper (fewer HD's) than Raid5. It
    >>> also doesn't depend on the Os as much (or at all).
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have to learn about RAID5... Perhaps, with more than one server,
    >> raid is not as essential.

    >
    > Whilst RAID does improve performance a bit, its real value is hot swappable
    > disks..on a 24x7 system under heavy use a lot of disks CAN fail in under 2
    > years..


    In addition to hot-swapability I'd say parity error correction is a great
    feature as well. Imagine a super-high availability server with TEDTEC.
    Up to three disks in the sequence could fail with no problems.


    >
    >
    > If you have an SQL system running, you can achieve remarkable performance
    > gains by
    > - correct attention to indexes
    > - putting the log file on a separate disk
    > - putting the sql data on a separate disk
    >
    > And indeed often more memory is the key to improved performance - most big
    > databases are NOT CPU bound at all.


    That really depends on the way you are accessing the database. A poor
    cache configuration can cause huge performance issues that a more
    intelligent design could fix. Better algorithms to process data can have
    HUGE impact (think O(n!) vs. an approx algo with something like
    O(2^n*p(n))). A lot of times it isn't the hardware that's bottle-necking
    performance, especially with the robust systems available today.

    >
    > You should do a thorough investigation of what is actually causing slow
    > performance before developing a strategy to cope with it.


    Wise advice.

    >
    >
    > I vividly recall adding some indexes and rewriting a particular report go the
    > run time from 37 minutes to a shade over 10 seconds.


    Think about a Fibonacci sequence. Two algorithms:


    recursive w/out memoization
    fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
    has exponential run-time.

    computing iteratively - O(n)

    Computing the 1000th fib recursive would take forever where the iterative
    algorithm would do it instantly.


    --Sir Jackery

  16. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    In <18qdnWfpsu7eTmvYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    Ignoramus28652 mentions:
    >On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:05:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote:
    >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:31:06 +0000, Toby A Inkster wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rock solid -- Linux has been doing 64-bit since before it was a twinkle in
    >>> Intel's eye -- it's supported Alpha and other such 64-bit platforms for
    >>> ages.

    >>
    >>
    >> Just be aware that 3rd party support for 64 bit is often lacking. I don't
    >> even know if Sybase has a version available, for example, and Oracle
    >> claims to have one but I found numerous 32 bit dependencies.

    >
    >I use MySQL, so that;'s not a problem. As long as perl, apache and
    >mysql run (including numerous perl modules that I need), I will be fine.


    I've never tried this, but..

    Do your perl applications run under FCGI? I did some unrelated experimenting
    with FCGI as opposed to mod_perl awhile ago and was very impressed.

    Seemed like the kind of thing that, provided you weren't working with
    files (or at least writing them and picking them up in other processes) you
    could use FastCGI by proxy, stripping out the overhead of having all those
    perl modules loaded in each httpd instance. I've seen memory leaks in
    mod_perl before (particularly where DBI is involved) that can really slow
    things down.

    Worth looking into, might be able to use old cheap hardware that way. (I still
    say that 2 low-end machines are better than one, particularly with failover)

    Jamie
    --
    http://www.geniegate.com Custom web programming
    Perl * Java * UNIX User Management Solutions

  17. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:44:14 GMT, Jamie wrote:
    > In <18qdnWfpsu7eTmvYnZ2dnUVZ_ompnZ2d@giganews.com>,
    > Ignoramus28652 mentions:
    >>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:05:58 -0400, Andrew Gideon wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:31:06 +0000, Toby A Inkster wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rock solid -- Linux has been doing 64-bit since before it was a twinkle in
    >>>> Intel's eye -- it's supported Alpha and other such 64-bit platforms for
    >>>> ages.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Just be aware that 3rd party support for 64 bit is often lacking. I don't
    >>> even know if Sybase has a version available, for example, and Oracle
    >>> claims to have one but I found numerous 32 bit dependencies.

    >>
    >>I use MySQL, so that;'s not a problem. As long as perl, apache and
    >>mysql run (including numerous perl modules that I need), I will be fine.

    >
    > I've never tried this, but..
    >
    > Do your perl applications run under FCGI? I did some unrelated experimenting
    > with FCGI as opposed to mod_perl awhile ago and was very impressed.


    I am fairly far into using mod_perl, it is too late to consider
    switching.

    > Seemed like the kind of thing that, provided you weren't working with
    > files (or at least writing them and picking them up in other processes) you
    > could use FastCGI by proxy, stripping out the overhead of having all those
    > perl modules loaded in each httpd instance. I've seen memory leaks in
    > mod_perl before (particularly where DBI is involved) that can really slow
    > things down.


    You know, I have a lot of settings to kill httpd processes (after
    response is handled) once they grow to certain size. It does not
    happen that often.

    > Worth looking into, might be able to use old cheap hardware that way. (I still
    > say that 2 low-end machines are better than one, particularly with failover)


    Yes, you are right. I am leaning in the direction of a medium end
    machine with two power supplies, maybe. (redundant power supplies)

    i

  18. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    On Mar 11, 10:05 am, Andrew Gideon wrote:

    > Just be aware that 3rd party support for 64 bit is often lacking. I don't
    > even know if Sybase has a version available, for example, and Oracle
    > claims to have one but I found numerous 32 bit dependencies.


    Unless you're talking about drivers, it doesn't matter. 64-bit Linux
    runs 32-bit code faster than 32-bit Linux does on the same hardware.

    DS


  19. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    Ignoramus7931 wrote:
    > My spec so far is 8 GB of RAM, two dual core CPUs (to make four
    > cores), and four hard drives, to be arranged in some sort of RAID
    > arrangement. Maybe put three on RAID and use the fourth as backup/swap
    > disk.


    Sacrifice processor speed for more memory and faster disks. For your
    needs, I would recommend RAID 5 with a hotswap. Warning, most RAID
    controllers aren't real hardware RAID, they are "FakeRAID", and they
    tend to need a driver to work properly. My new system is a dual
    socket/dual core AMD 64 and I've pretty much given up on getting Ubuntu
    to recognize the RAID 0 configuration at installation time. I can't go
    with software RAID since it's meant to be a dual boot system (winxp for
    gaming).

    >
    > My question is, will linux handle this many CPUs efficiently. Will 32
    > bit linux be able to use all 8 GB of RAM. I am aware that no process
    > could occupy more than 4gb, under 32 bit, which is fine with me.


    Yes, 32-bit linux will handle it, though you _might_ need to install a
    different kernel than the default -- depends on the distro.

    --
    Ross

  20. Re: Heavy duty linux server

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

    So anyway, it was like, 18:26 CET Mar 16 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Ross Wentworth was all like, "Dude,

    [..]

    > I can't go with software RAID since it's meant to be a dual boot
    > system (winxp for gaming).


    Software raid isn't limited to using entire disks. I have a desktop
    box which dual boots for much the same reason as yours, the linux
    installation is using partitions on both drives as md-raid devices
    and the xp installation is just using one partition on each disk as
    individual drives.

    I never even considered trying to get the onboard fake-raid to work.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    13:34:10 up 130 days, 11:15, 5 users, load average: 0.08, 0.15, 0.10
    Linux 2.6.18.1 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

+ Reply to Thread