[NBLUG/talk] Multiple Server Setup Advice

Tue Aug 19 12:17:01 PDT 2003

     That's good advice on the Pentium Pro. I knew they were fast and
sonic used to use them alot. The only problem is I don't think that
MB has dimm sockets, but 72 pin SIMMs. It's loaded with 128 right
now. I'll have to do a search on the MB and see if it can handle
bigger simms. I assume they made 64meg 75 pin simms? Yes I think my
main problem is memory gets pretty squeaky. That and I know mySQL is
intended for machines with 128-512 for it alone. So build up the 200
and switch to it, perhaps buying a router/firewall to take a little
stress of the server.

System normal (after a reboot I think typical free memory is much less):

 12:17pm  up 6 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.21, 0.26, 0.14
54 processes: 52 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states:  1.5% user,  1.3% system,  0.0% nice, 97.0% idle
Mem:   126512K av,   70600K used,   55912K free,       0K shrd,    6736K buff
Swap:  265064K av,       0K used,  265064K free                   38328K
cached

Running CGI Search:
 12:17pm  up 7 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.19, 0.25, 0.14
55 processes: 53 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 95.9% user,  3.8% system,  0.0% nice,  0.1% idle
Mem:   126512K av,   72512K used,   54000K free,       0K shrd,    6792K buff
Swap:  265064K av,       0K used,  265064K free                   38328K
cached

> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:16:30AM -0700, Walter Hansen wrote:
>>
>>      I've currently got a Pentium 166 with 128megs as a server running
>> apache, serving as a router, serving files with samba, doing minor
>> mail services, ssh, and runing mySQL. Recently I got some more
>> hardware and was thinking about spreading the services a little. I've
>> got another P-166 and a Pentium Pro 200. However I'm tempted to use
>> the PP200 for a user machine and regulate the current user machine, a
>> P150 to server use. The question there is would a PP200 make a better
>> user-98 box or a better server?
>
> I think the ppro with its much faster L2 cache would be better utilized
> as a server.  Give it enough ram (128-256MB) and it should be able to
> handle all your server needs.  it will perform much better than your
> P166 despite only a 33 Mhz jump in processer speed.
>
> Personally, for electricity, noise and space reasons I prefer as few
> machines running as necessary.  I also think that *generally speaking*
> that model would improve security because you fewer machines to
> maintain.  I say "generally" because there are many situations where
> segregating services is useful.  Providing a shell to untrusted users,
> for instance, should be on a machine that is as isolated as possible.
>
>>      My main question is how should I split things up to improve flow.
>> The
>> network is 10bT. I'm kinda thinking I should put the router on the low
>> end box and have it handle routing and ssh. Then use the higher end
>> box for the webserver (or mySQL server). Then combine the samba and
>> mySQL on one midrange server. Or I could build a P100 for the
>> router/ssh and just split it webserver/fileserver/database server?
>
> It's hard to say how to split things up (should you go that route)
> without more knowledge of your typical usage but to use the word
> "generally" again,  things tend to take up CPU in this order: Mysql,
> samba, web.  In your situation, it sounds like the file serving might
> use most CPU.
>
>>      I'm getting about a hundred hits per day on the webserver, double
>> that if you count search engine robots. The file server only supports
>> at most two users at a time. The database server would have a similar
>> usage from users, but would support the webserver as well. I just feel
>> like its getting to be a lot for a poor little 166 to do and I think
>> it might improve security to split things up.
>
> What's "top" say about things during load?  From what you've described,
> I'd think even a P166 could handle the job.  Does it get noticably
> slower with a few people using it?  If so, it may be more RAM bound than
> anything else.  Or maybe a dog-slow disk.
>
>>       With at most two or three users surfing arround, how much power
>> is
>> needed for the router? I almost think I should just buy one. I'm using
>> firestarter for routing/NAT/firewall services.
>
> I'm of the mind that it doesn't pay to have a big, (relatively) power
> hungry box on all the time to provide routing/NAT when a small consumer
> device will do the trick.  The device should pay for itself in
> electricity savings within a year.  I have a box doing NAT only because
> it's providing a bunch of other services as well. (and i like to play)
>
>> ps Go ahead and snicker at my crappy hardware.
>
> hehe, a P90 handled just about everything here for many moons.  It was
> only when I got tired of how long it took to resize images for a web
> gallery that I threw more hardware at it.
>
> -troy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk