Re: Redundent Debian linux web server

Wow everyone... this is awesome information. The current site,
although busy enough to move to a T1 is not likely to get /. ed We,
based on the information you guys gave, are most likely to go with
the main server, with a warm backup... most likely on site for speed.
Tape can be stored off site for the big stuff.

I have dealt with Microsoft SQL replication and I am not to
comfortable with the whole replication load balancing thin. As I said
I was moving out side my comfort zone here. I can see that the
majority here would all agree to stay away if possible.

Thanks Again

Dick

On 7/27/06, Dave Hall <dave-slg@dnh.sk.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:36:40PM -0600, chris@fazekas.net wrote:
> > Thanks for the comments Jeff. I should explain a touch more why I was
> > looking
> > to "overkill" my clients setup. He often gets hit by / . which is good for
> > business... when the server stays up and alive... :)
>
> How dynamic is the content? Is it really interactive and a pile of database
> hits are justified for each request? Could some of the resulting pages be
> cached? If so, rather than all the replication and stuff, perhaps putting a
> caching server such as squid out front as a reverse proxy could provide an
> easy win without another box to maintain.
>
>
> --
>
> Dave
>
>
> --
> "Well, there's SPAM, egg, sausage, and SPAM. That's not got MUCH SPAM in it."
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message with the word "unsubscribe" (without the
> quotes) in the body to linux-request@slg.org
> Archives are at http://list.slg.org/
>
Received on Thu Jul 27 08:00:01 2006