Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Two smaller servers vs one big.
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Two smaller servers vs one big.

myhkenmyhken Member

I have two smaller servers with Hetzner now . one i7 3770 with 16 GB RAM and 2 x 3 TB disk.
Then I have a XEON E3-1245v2 with 32 GB ECC RAM, and 2 x 3 TB Enterprise disks.
Both in different DC. Both have VMs replicated between them, also other backup files.

But then I have started to think, I'm paying so much now, so I can afford a "big" server a i7 3930 with 64 GB RAM and 4 x 3 TB disks.

It's score over 2000 more points. Will not use RAID, will use one and one disk, so if one disk fails, I will have backup on one of the others.

Whould you have gone for a bigger server, and running all VMs from one server, rather then splitting them up in two?

Comments

  • I usually prefer to split services only for redundancy. If there's an issue where RAM fails in that one mega box, then you're SOL until it's replaced. However with two, your entire infrastructure will not fail.

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • IkoulaIkoula Member, Host Rep

    Hello,

    +1 i will keep two servers if i were you.

    Redundancy is the garantee to have a service up 24/7/365.

    It's great for your customers and for your peace of mind.

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    If you don't need the CPU power it will be better to have two if you can bring up the backup fast.

    There are more things then a broken disk that could happen to a single server that would cause downtime.
    What if the OS disk fails? What good does a backup do if you can't boot it?

    Thanked by 1myhken
  • Better choose 2 smaller servers.

    Thanked by 1myhken
Sign In or Register to comment.