Here's what we're looking for:
- Database: We need a pair of database servers. 4 CPUs and 6GB of RAM each. Windows 2003 for running Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise edition. We also need fast drives with hardware RAID 1+0, not software mirroring. 4 fast 73GB drives is what we've been running, but we're open to having more drives and more space.
- Web: We need 3 Windows web servers. 2 CPUs each. 2-4GB of RAM each. At least 200GB of disk space, again mirrored and we prefer many smaller faster drives over giant slow ones and we need RAID 5.
- Bandwidth: We are serving about
400GB 6TB per month and we're only getting bigger. [That 400GB figure we had was way off. Looking at our network reports, we're in the 4 to 8TB range.] - Firewalls: We need redundant, dedicated firewalls.
- Future: Soon we're adding some Linux web servers and we'll need load balancing, so this can't be a Windows-only host.
Let me know what you've got.
GrimJack
EZ Street
Jon Sable, Freelance
Comments (14)
Add a Comment Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.
Brian Alvey 2485 days ago
Great suggestions. I'm already in contact with a few of the companies mentioned here.
On the ServerBeach thing, I met the founder at SxSW a year ago and could have sworn he was from Rackspace. So seeing the RackShack vs. RackSpace thing was interesting. At first I thought I remembered it wrong.
I considered ServerBeach based on meeting Richard and knowing some people who use them, but I'm looking for a more managed setup.
Duncan: I've done publishing systems in Windows and open source and there are good things to be said about both. What we're currently using is nearly all Microsoft, but we're adding more Linux to the mix soon.
Thanks!
Jeremy C. Wright 2487 days ago
If you're looking for the best in the business for dedicated boxes, the answer is RackSpace. They're absolutely, hands down, the best. I've housed medical apps on their servers with 100% uptime over a dozen servers over a year.
If you just need Colo, I'm a huge fan of Q9. During the power outage that hit the East Coast, theirs were the only lights on in the city through the whole thing (outside of hospitals, of course).
They do great work, and it's a great team.
Jeremy C. Wright 2486 days ago
Actually, ServerBeach is a RackSHACK spinoff, which is totally different.
Brian, you want reliability for your business. Pay the extra 100$/month/server. You won't regret it.
Duncan: My personal experience, after 5 years of managing more than 3000 windows boxes is that it'll do fine as long as WIN has the right people managing the servers - same as Linux.
Brian, if youw ant to chat offline, feel free to email / Skype (jeremy_wright) me. I've worked with most of these companies over the years in building my own hosting companies, doing massive streaming (1 PETAbyte/year), etc.
You guys have run into issues lately. Dont' repeat those by doing a server move to somewhere "just as good".
Brian 2487 days ago
I've looked into Rackspace, they are a bit pricey, but very good. Another one which is almost as good, is theplanet.com, they host my server. Not as expensive, and can handle all of what you're looking for. Maybe interland can do stuff for ya.
Either way, it looks like you're looking at a pretty hefty hosting bill regardless of which you choose.
Ted Rheingold 2487 days ago
If you're looking for the cheapest in the business it may be ServerBeach, the RackSpace spin-off.
We've used them for Dogster.com and Catster.com for over a year. We have some 2CPU/2-80GBdrive/1GBram machines for $239/mo (linux). Their support is pretty standard (read usually good enough, sometimes frustrating). The network is fast, always up and you get 2000GB of data transfer/month.
They also have remote reboot and for linux boxes a remote single user reboot. They have good forums you get admins to answer and you can get complete support if need at any extra cost.
So besides some original configuration and hardware issue upon receiving a new boxes it's been cheap and reliable. Though those may not be the adjective you are looking for....
Sorry, but I've never used any of their Windows boxes.
Ted Rheingold 2486 days ago
My bad. ServerBeach was founded by Richard Yoo, Rackspace founder while he was still at Rackspace. So it wasn't a spin-off. (but the RaskShack reference is in fact, whack)
More recently ServerBeach was offically 'merged' with Peer1 a couple months back, though 'sold' was the term I heard Richard use when I spoke with him in March. So far the only change in service has been faster data transfer, but we shall see how it goes.
In case anyone is confused by my entry the adjectives I meant to describe it are cheap and acceptably reliable. I didn't intend it to be a real recommendation to WIN (unless you really do want to save every penny) though I thought it would simply be interesting to ad to the overall knowledgebase this entry would generate and to determine how much more one would be paying over barebones.
But please, if you are considering ServerBeach, for the love of dog, use our referral code: XUHPMJQYKT. Woof!
Looking forward to seeing what others are paying for what.
jojo 2487 days ago
You'll find a lot of useful information here:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/index.php
Duncan 2487 days ago
Got to ask, but why would you want Windows boxes? In the past I've had nothing but problems with Windows hosts over a number of blogs and static sites before that. Linux would do a far better job, but this is only my humble opinion based on personal experience, others may disagree.
Brian 2486 days ago
ServerBeach does not seem to be affiliated with Rackspace, it says its owned by Peer1 Networks.
braxton 2486 days ago
I think Rising Tide used to have a T1 from Thorn Networks - we do some colo with them now, and have been very happy with their level of service and personal attention.
Richard Y 2485 days ago
ServerBeach was a spin off of Rackspace Managed Hosting. Ultimately it was sold to Peer1. There, thats the real story. :)
You can read more here:
http://www.serverbeach.com/catalog/about_us.php
or here:
http://www.richardyoo.com
Salman 2482 days ago
Hi,
That's some serious server power. It would be interesting to see how a ASP.NET version of your application would preform (and how much potential savings on server hardware etc).
I believe you guys where at first doing this in .NET ?
Pete Freitag 2473 days ago
6TB of bandwidth! You guys should probably turn on HTTP compression...
Mandrake 2362 days ago
For high loaded database servers I would stay away from Intel Xeons and IDE/SATA drives...
Hyper-threading might in fact cause a bottleneck because of unnecessary threads. Opterons with fast SCSI drives seem to work better in heavily accessed database servers.