We just bought a new server (1 Viewer)

[Jim]

We have three servers that help to deliver motorhomefun to you. But we've outgrown the main one that hosts our ever growing database and forum files. So we've just bought one that should cope. It has two x Intel Xeon processors. . Around 13TB of disk space with 1TB of that on fast solid state disks. That and the 128GB of RAM should keep us all zipping along quite nicely for at least the next three years. Were testing it this weekend and @Gromett will be tweaking it for speed and hardening it up in the fight against Spammers. Not sure when we'll move over to it, we'll probably be ready in a couple or three weeks

 

[mushy]

I didn't understand any of that Jim but you're doing a damn good job.

 

[EuroTrotters]

Bloody Brilliant.

Thank you for the ongoing growth and support.

Best forum on the web. And I use a lot.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Steve and Denise]

That's the type of server I had in mind.

 

[RogerThat]

Wrong kind of server @Bailey58

@Jim @Gromett AWS (et al) not cheaper / more flexible / higher availability / etc than physical kit these days?

 

[namwaldog]

I remember when we had an Acorn Computer and it came with instructions on how to write and record the code onto a C30. Cassette tape. It took my (then) 12 yo son and I, 3 days to write the code, test it and then hit the play button to make a stick man swing on a rope. Things must have advanced since then

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Wildbill]

Is this a remote server enther that or you have one hell of a good Internet connection
Bill

 

[DBK]

We have three servers that help to deliver motorhomefun to you. But we've outgrown the main one that hosts our ever growing database and forum files. So we've just bought one that should cope. It has two x Intel Xeon processors. . Around 13TB of disk space with 1TB of that on fast solid state disks. That and the 128GB of RAM should keep us all zipping along quite nicely for at least the next three years. Were testing it this weekend and @Gromett will be tweaking it for speed and hardening it up in the fight against Spammers. Not sure when we'll move over to it, we'll probably be ready in a couple or three weeks

You should offer your services to Amazon. I use their forum for self-publishers and the spam on it is a joke. Literally three pages of spam links isn't unusual.

 

[Anthea M]

Would it help data if I posted less?!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

Would it help data if I posted less?!

No, we need your posts, which is why we buy the storage

 

[Anthea M]

Phew!!! I’ll keep at it then!!

 

[Jim]

Is this a remote server enther that or you have one hell of a good Internet connection
Bill

Yes that is a rented remote server with a massive internet pipe atached

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

@Jim @Gromett AWS (et al) not cheaper / more flexible / higher availability / etc than physical kit these days?

Erm... it's not / It depends on what you are doing / it's not.

It is not cheaper. It is extortionately more expensive.
It is kind of more flexible in that you can resize to a degree, but there are limitations on things like kernels you can use and some software doesn't work.
Higher availability

By far the BIGGEST reason not to use any form of Virtualisation/Cloud/VPS system is performance. They NEVER perform at the speed of direct on hardware servers especially when you are hitting them with the load we are hitting our server. The only exception to this is if you go HUGE with load balancers and complex DNS tricks but then you are talking HUGE budgetary requirements.

I have been doing this for over 20 years now, I have tried all the cloud solutions at one time or another and they are over complex, over expensive and not as reliable as a good hardware stack you have full control over.

https://www.readitquik.com/articles/cloud-3/top-7-aws-outages-that-wreaked-havoc/

 

[old-mo]

over expensive and not as reliable as a good hardware stack you have full control over.

Now you tell me...

Paid 7 shillings and sixpence for my server back in March 1965 or was it 66..

Been getting slower and slower the last few years...

Have I got any redress on the registry office after 52 years..?

You know.......... Fit for purpose and all that legal jargon...

Perhaps Jim would sell me one of his old worn out one... got to be faster than the one I have now..

 

[WillH]

Jim, whatever you're doing I think you are doing a sterling job, many, many thanks.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonka]

I had a new server upgrade at Christmas. Works well when she's at home on a Friday night.

 

[bigtree]

Will it thin out the Mo Rons?

 

[Taran_Las]

Keep up the good work gents

(from one who retired from IT a few years ago)​

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Theonlysue]

I got the wrong end of the stick there.

I don't think that's a motorhome kitchen?

 

[grumps147]

I got the wrong end of the stick there.

I happened to suggest this server may be faster than the one I have now.

I am hoping to be recovered sufficiently to make it to Chester.

 

[EX51SSS]

So can the new server cope with Windows 97?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[42208]

Erm... it's not / It depends on what you are doing / it's not.

It is not cheaper. It is extortionately more expensive.
It is kind of more flexible in that you can resize to a degree, but there are limitations on things like kernels you can use and some software doesn't work.
Higher availability

By far the BIGGEST reason not to use any form of Virtualisation/Cloud/VPS system is performance. They NEVER perform at the speed of direct on hardware servers especially when you are hitting them with the load we are hitting our server. The only exception to this is if you go HUGE with load balancers and complex DNS tricks but then you are talking HUGE budgetary requirements.

I have been doing this for over 20 years now, I have tried all the cloud solutions at one time or another and they are over complex, over expensive and not as reliable as a good hardware stack you have full control over.

https://www.readitquik.com/articles/cloud-3/top-7-aws-outages-that-wreaked-havoc/

Interesting subject, platform providers would have you believe cloud based solutions are the only sensible option going forward, so good to see there is still a case to be put forward for the good old physical server rather than just following fashion. Whilst not fully understanding seems that if there is capacity for the future there must be spare capacity in the short term, can you rent it out?

 

[Jim]

So can the new server cope with Windows 97?

We did have a Windows Server once for about three months, it ended up costing me a small fortune paid to a couple of techies to stop it falling over, it was awful and we were rebooting daily at one point. Since then all of Fun's servers have been on centOS flavoured Linux. This is robust stuff, If we re-boot more than once a year something is wrong.

 

[EX51SSS]

We did have a Windows Server once for about three months, it ended up costing me a small fortune paid to a couple of techies to stop it falling over, it was awful and we were rebooting daily at one point. Since then all of Fun's servers have been on centOS flavoured Linux. This is robust stuff, If we re-boot it more than once a year something is wrong.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jim]

Interesting subject, platform providers would have you believe cloud based solutions are the only sensible option going forward,

I think cloud base solutions excel at storing large amounts of static data and are ideal for many, but are unsuited to our operation. Dedicated servers are best when you require exceptionally high levels of data security and or high demands for server capacity. Big, fast servers with access to a lot of bandwidth cost a small fortune, and thats just the start, managing them can cost as much again. But they really are the only solution for us.

 

[icantremember]

I don't think that's a motorhome kitchen?

I think you are right Sue, I hadn't noticed there was a kitchen!

 

[movan]

Ummm - what’s her Funster name ??

Could be @Trout bum I guess.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[icantremember]

Could be @Trout bum I guess.

Oooh ... you are awful!

 

[42208]

I think cloud base solutions excel at storing large amounts of static data and are ideal for many, but are unsuited to our operation. Dedicated servers are best when you require exceptionally high levels of data security and or high demands for server capacity. Big, fast servers with access to a lot of bandwidth cost a small fortune, and thats just the start, managing them can cost as much again. But they really are the only solution for us.

Jim, may not have conveyed it very well, however, I was quite pleased to see the proposed solution, seems everyone goes cloud as default as if it is the only solution. I understand the costs of dedicated physical severs and hence my question 'Can you rent out the short term spare capacity'?

 

[Jim]

Jim, may not have conveyed it very well, however, I was quite pleased to see the proposed solution, seems everyone goes cloud as default as if it is the only solution. I understand the costs of dedicated physical severs and hence my question 'Can you rent out the short term spare capacity'?

Yes, you can, its so easy these days. We do rent some space to store old backups on it. But we tend to use a dedicated server for our backups. Cheap and cheerful low spec servers but we are in control of the security etc.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}