need server advice : VBulletin 3.5 w/ 1000 simultaneous users

[SFNMutt]

I just asked this at webhostingtalk.com, but I figured I should get a VB opinion as well.

I've been battling with my server for a couple months now and I thought I'd ask in here for some advice before signing up for a new dedicated box.

I run www.SternFanNetwork.com and I've been using a very modified v2.3 for way too long. It's time to bite the bullet and upgrade to v3.5. I've been getting alot of radio plugs and my traffic is steadily growing. 2 months ago I was on a P4 3.0 w/ 1gig ram with 100-300 simultaneous and started choking on mysql processes during heavy loads. The CPU was maxing out. I upgraded to a Dual Xeon 2.4 w/ 2 gig of ram and I already see that it's time to move again. I crash at least once a day with mysql.sock errors. I have 400-500 users online all the time and at peak times we hit 700-900. then we die. I'm going to get many more radio plugs in the upcoming months and I want to be sure that I'm on a box big enough to handle the growth. I currently get 3-5 million pages views a month and the site is entirely php tied into VB. I need to run super smooth all the time and be able to handle a plug by Howard.

I know that upgrading to VB3.5 will help alot. I have the old attachments as files hack installed and I've been dreading switching to 3.5 with over a DVD worth of attachments that need to be converted. I'll be picking up a new license, transferring the 2.3 site, installing 3.5 and then making the switch.

I'm currently with servermatrix, and though I've been happy with them in the past, this last box I got from them was enough of a mess that I'd prefer to move on. It came with one burnt processor and it took them a month before they would do a hardware test and switch me to a new box.

with everything I've mentioned, can I get some advice on a new box and a host? (I want cpanel) I'd like to be able to host a couple low traffic sites as well. at least one uses mysql as well.

I'm currently looking the www.LiquidWeb.com Webmaster 2.
AMD Athlon64 X2 Dual Core 3800+ w/ 2GB DDR PC3200, 120GB 7200RPM SATA / 8MB Cache, CentOS 4, & cpanel for $249. I don't want to throw money away, but I don't want to out grow this box in 3 months either. should I be using something more?

thank you in advance for any help I may get. I'm really pressed for time and would like to get onto the new box ASAP.

[SFNMutt]

the webhostingtalk.com peeps all seem to agree that I either need 2 boxes with one for the DB or I'll need that soon and should get ready.

Liquid web has this one
http://www.liquidweb.com/dedicated/configure/Professional/Plan2/index.cgi

Dual Opteron 244 Processors (64 Bit!)
2000 GB Multi-Homed Premium Bandwidth
2GB DDR Registered ECC (upgradable to 4)
Dual 36GB SCSI / Hardware Raid 1
Linux - CentOS 4 w/ cPanel & InitAdmin

Do I need to go this extreme already? Down the road I could upgrade to 4gig ram and eventually use it as my DB box.

i'm getting sticker shock, but I certainly need to make this move. any and all help will be appreciated

[Joshs]

If that is 1000 users with the default timeout, then I would recommend two servers as well. One for HTTP and one for DB. As you grow even further you can upgrade the DB server and expand to multiple HTTP servers. IMO, I try to stay away from AMD servers...a lot of past bad experiences with them overheating.

[SFNMutt]

during the day we get 200-500 simultanous but in the evening it's 500 plus from 6pm on. we crash when we get near 1000 so I'm not really sure how many are trying to get on. it's so hard to make pick a host & machine especially when everyone has different opinions.

thanks for the input

[Zachery]

To be honest, Opterons far out preform Xeons. Their much more well made for server processing. Dual Opterons or even Dual Core Dual Opterons would be killer for a webserver. As far as costs go you could probally leave the http server(s) on xeons.

Are you sure its 200-500 sim mysql connections? Or just users online?

[SFNMutt]

it's users online. I don't know how many mysql connections it is.

[ChrisLM2001]

I'd stay away from Liquidweb (caught them on false advertizing with a VPS special, and their support was substandard). Also, depending on where you're located and what network your ISP uses, you may get a congested bottleneck through Chicago (had 2 webhosts that channeled through there and got too many dropped packets from each).

That said, 2 servers is one the way to go (or if you're into colo, build a dual board setup to save rack costs <-- can fit 2 m/bs into one case that's a little longer, but can fit a 1U slot that would save $250/mon. Going to be charged 95 percentile anyway, so one server case would be enough).

Also check some threads around here for optimizing the mysql (especially Erwin's posts <-- his work on removing joins in mysql and such is a major heads up on optimizing). That'll help out and reduce the server load as well.

One other thing, you can always rent another server for overflow (like one to use for saving backups, remote DNS and file serving -- a cheap Celeron or even a old P3 would do for that). That'll take all of the image/attachments and other non critical connections off the main server(s), and leave it for mainly mysql. You don't really need 2 workhorse computers (webhosts will love to sell you them, but the only one that needs the power is mysql -- so save your money).

From what I've been hearing, the real benefits come not from mysql but MSSQL (and why businesses are using it compared to the free mysql). But unfortunately, vB is tailored to mysql.

Chris

[Jasmin]

I would highly recommend any super high end box and Centos 4.x (with fast 2.6 kernel). I'd still go with SCSI drives, unless you know the SATA drives you're getting are the highest spec.

I, too, have had better luck recently with AMD than Intel. My $300/mo dual Xeon (with dual SCSI drives) ran like a dog compared to my AMD server, even though it was highly optimized.

I've gone through lots of dedicated solutions, and Servstra.com are great. Been with them over a half year now. Free "management" included (you 'tell 'em what to do, they're not proactive at these low prices...) and a blitzingly fast network on the nation's financial backbone. Whatever their management techs can't handle, I have Steve @ Rack911 do. In fact, no matter who you go with, pay the $100 or so to have Steve setup your new box really well, so you're running SIM & everything.

Servstra occasionally has deals on WHT, but if you write sales, they'll make you a custom deal when you're talking high end hardware. Easy folks to work with. The hardware is in the US at Savvis, but the company is in Australia where things are cheaper, so they can beat almost any deal. You can also get your own switch there so can wire two boxes together.

[Joshs]

I would highly recommend any super high end box and Centos 4.x (with fast 2.6 kernel). I'd still go with SCSI drives, unless you know the SATA drives you're getting are the highest spec.

I, too, have had better luck recently with AMD than Intel. My $300/mo dual Xeon (with dual SCSI drives) ran like a dog compared to my AMD server, even though it was highly optimized.

I've gone through lots of dedicated solutions, and Servstra.com are great. Been with them over a half year now. Free "management" included (you 'tell 'em what to do, they're not proactive at these low prices...) and a blitzingly fast network on the nation's financial backbone. Whatever their management techs can't handle, I have Steve @ Rack911 do. In fact, no matter who you go with, pay the $100 or so to have Steve setup your new box really well, so you're running SIM & everything.

Servstra occasionally has deals on WHT, but if you write sales, they'll make you a custom deal when you're talking high end hardware. Easy folks to work with. The hardware is in the US at Savvis, but the company is in Australia where things are cheaper, so they can beat almost any deal. You can also get your own switch there so can wire two boxes together.

I highly recommend not using Steve from Rack911. I recommend ServerWizards or Acunett over him. His level of professionalism is less than to be desired.

[Jasmin]

I highly recommend not using Steve from Rack911. I recommend ServerWizards or Acunett over him. His level of professionalism is less than to be desired.
Yeah, that's an interesting point you bring up. He doesn't work with everyone, and there doesn't necessarily seem to be rhyme or reason to whom he accepts. I recommended a friend to him and he never responded to them. I see the same thing on WHT. Good technical head, and not so much a people person.

Unfortunately, he can do things many techs can't (had to use him for a couple of issues that he fixed in minutes that everyone else failed at after many hours or flat out said was impossible). I do see your point, though, as reachability can be a concern.

Which specific techs do you recommend at ServerWizards or Acunett? What are their specialties?

[ChrisLM2001]

He's not bad at what he does -- if you're in a pickle and need to get out server wise, he is the one to goto (he's a REAL hacker, not a script installer). He had a bad situation in the past, which the hosting community gave him a dressing down of all dress downs for doing what he did, but he's coming back. He's young and now learned a valuable lesson about what power he can hold in his hands, and what never, never, never to do again. This can be the reason why he's very picky of new clients too.

Give him a try if you have a complex server setup, or locked yourself out of a dedicated. He's really good at what he does, but like most hacker types they are "touchy", you'll need to let him do his business and not nag him (techy types are like this a lot!).

I tried Acunett and they're not bad, but I'll still shop around for someone that can do more. Some sys admins really baby your server, others you're but a ticket. So shop wisely.

Chris