Hi can anyone let me know which is the better server
-
hi, i am trying to find out which is the better dedicated server and would like your opinion.
the first one is
Dell PowerEdge
Intel Xeon E3-1220L, 2.2GHz Dual-Core
4GB DDR3 RAM
2 x 500GB SATA HDD
Linux/Windows
10000GB Monthly Transfer
Up to 2 IP Addresses
LSI Raid Cardand the second one is,
Intel Atom 330 1MB L2 Cache 1.6GH
500GBStorage
4GBRAM
10TBBandwidthif you can please let me know the difference and which one is better for speed and for memory for a large site.
many thanks
-
Sorry I missed your followup question on this, Diane.
I would say the original server mentioned is still the better choice. The Xeon processor in it is specifically designed for server use. The i3 processor in this one is the 3rd tier of Intel's consumer processors.
In addition, the original is a name-brand Dell built with components specifically for servers - motherboard, power supply etc This is important because servers are a much higher-stress environment than most consumer-level computers. Also it has a RAID array which is of major importance in critical servers. i.e. if you lose money when sites are offline.
The system you just listed looks to be a "white box" system - a system assembled by the hosting company using whatever parts are most economical. Doesn't mean it's a bad server, just that it's much harder to know the quality of the components.
The one thing this last server has in its favour is that it's got 50% more RAM. Good for heavy server loads. But in my opinion this doesn't outweigh the other advantages of the first server. (And you can simply upgrade to more RAM for the original server if and when your websites' needs require it.)
All that said, the hardware isn't the only thing by which to a dedicated server should be judged. The quality, speed and redundancy of the backbone connections to the Internet, quality and speed of tech support, turnaround time for hardware repairs are all critical as well.
Hope that helps.
Paul
-
can i check if the following dedicated hosting package is any better than the ones i have listed
Intel i3 540 3.06 Ghz HT 4MB S-Cache
500GBStorage6GBRAM10TBBandwidth
-
Given the number of sites and total volume of traffic, a dedicated server seems to be a reasonable choice in your case, Diane, as you probably need that kind of power.
Do note though that most hosting accounts, even shared hosting, allow for hosting of multiple sites on one account so it's not necessary to go to a dedicated server for that reason alone.
Not sure what kind of cost you're looking at for the dedicated server, but an equivalently powered fully-managed VPS would run in the range of $200/month plus $25/month for daily offsite backup for a UK-based server.
This would not provide root access to the server, but then most fully-managed dedicated servers don't offer that either.
One of the big benefits to a VPS is its flexibility. It's very easy to add power to the server for the busy times, then scale it back (ie save money) during slower periods. It also means that if you add more sites and more traffic and need more power, it's only a couple of click to accomplish, as opposed to a full server move as would be needed on a dedicated server.
Paul
-
Hi. the reason i am choosing a dedicated server is because in total i have around 30 small sites and one medium site and one large site, so a dedicated server was the cheaper option than having seperate hosting accounts.
If there is a cheaper and better option then i would love to hear about it. the total traffic from all the sites is around12000 visitors per day
-
thank you for that, i will go with that one then, many thanks
-
Oleg and Maurizio are correct in their assessment, but they've each introduced some confusion in the process.
Here's the rundown:
-
Xeon processors are extremely powerful processors specifically designed for servers. Atom processors are budget consumer-level processors designed to be cheap, not fast.
-
the motherboard and associated systems of a DELL Poweredge are specifically designed for server use. That is unlikely to be true for an Atom-based system.
-
both systems contain the same amount of memory (RAM) - 4 GB. It's quite likely that the RAM in the first server is of a faster type though.
-
both systems contain the same amount of usable hard-drive space. In servers with 2 identical hard drives and a RAID setup, the default configuration is always what's referred to as "mirrored" or RAID1. This means both drives contain exactly the same content as each other. So even though the total number of gigabytes is double in the first server compared to the second, the total usable space is the same for each.
- The reason this RAID1 is highly desirable for a reliable website is that if one drive experiences a hardware failure, the other drive instantly takes over so there's no downtime. There is NO protection from getting hacked in this scenario, as each drive constantly copies itself to the other so both are identical. This means a hack would instantly be copied over to the second drive. Proper backup (eg hack protection) requires a separate backup drive stored on a completely separate server. RAID is NOT a backup method, it simplify allows systems to be more reliable even if a hardware failure occurs (called redundancy)
All this to say the first systems is clearly a superior server, as both Oleg and Maurizio pointed out.
However, I'd also like to say - it's pretty unusual that an individual website would benefit from this heavy a server configuration. Only a heavily database-intensive site getting well over a million visits a year would require this kind of power and associated expense.
Most individual websites are much better served by a VPS (Virtual Private Server) which offers most of the advantage of a dedicated server but with significantly more flexibility and lower cost.
Are you certain a dedicated server is what's needed?
Paul
-
-
Yes Oleg is right
The first server is sure the better than the second.
-
The Cpu si more faster
-
The memory is more..
Ciao
Maurizio
-
-
The top one is better. Faster processor, more HD space (1TB vs 500GB), same bandwidth, + RAID card (in case your HD is fried/hacked, have a backup).
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can you confirm legitimate Google Bot traffic?
We use Cloudflare as a firewall. I noticed a significant number of blocks of bot traffic. One of the things they do is try to block bad bot traffic. But it seems they are mistakenly blocking Google Bot traffic. If you use Cloudflare, you may want to look into this as well. Also, can you confirm if the following IPs are for legitimate Google Bots? 66.249.79.88
Technical SEO | | akin67
66.249.79.65
66.249.79.80 66.249.79.76 Thanks,1 -
Google Cache can't keep up with my 403s
Hi Mozzers, I hope everyone is well. I'm having a problem with my website and 403 errors shown in Google Webmaster Tools. The problem comes because we "unpublish" one of the thousands of listings on the site every few days - this then creates a link that gives a 403. At the same time we also run some code that takes away any links to these pages. So far so good. Unfortunately Google doesn't notice that we have removed these internal links and so tries to access these pages again. This results in a 403. These errors show up in Google Webmaster Tools and when I click on "Linked From" I can verify that that there are no links to the 403 page - it's just Google's Cache being slow. My question is a) How much is this hurting me? b) Can I fix it? All suggestions welcome and thanks for any answers!
Technical SEO | | HireSpace1 -
HTTP Vary:User-Agent Server or Page Level?
Looking for any insights regarding the usage of the Vary HTTP Header. Mainly around the idea that search engines will not like having a Vary HTTP Header on pages that don't have a mobile version, which means the header will be to be implemented on a page-by-page basis. Additionally, does anyone has experience with the usage of the Vary HTTP Header and CDNs like Akamai?Google still recommends using the header, even though it can present some challenges with CDNs. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | burnseo0 -
Can anyone review my site please?
just wandering if anyone can review my site and give me some feedback please much grateful I have just really trying to get clients don't have any yet and any help would be great. reseolve.com
Technical SEO | | ReSEOlve0 -
Does anyone know how to automatically record Google Cache dates?
I haven't heard of such a tool but I would have thought it would be pretty useful for measuring changes etc Does anyone know of such a tool?
Technical SEO | | CraigAddyman0 -
Can I Disallow Faceted Nav URLs - Robots.txt
I have been disallowing /*? So I know that works without affecting crawling. I am wondering if I can disallow the faceted nav urls. So disallow: /category.html/? /category2.html/? /category3.html/*? To prevent the price faceted url from being cached: /category.html?price=1%2C1000
Technical SEO | | tylerfraser
and
/category.html?price=1%2C1000&product_material=88 Thanks!0 -
Has anyone used paid services to help improve their site
Hi, i am getting lots of spam in my mail box about how companies can help you get more traffic and i see on lots of sites about tools that can bring you more traffic and help improve your site, and i am just wondering if anyone has tried any of these services or products to help promote their site. For example, i keep getting sent about submitting my site to over 200 directories or search engines and just wondering if these are a waste of time.
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
On a dedicated server with multiple IP addresses, how can one address group be slow/time out and all other IP addresses OK?
We utilize a dedicated server to host roughly 60 sites on. The server is with a company that utilizes a lady who drives race cars.... About 4 months ago we realized we had a group of sites down thanks to monitoring alerts and checked it out. All were on the same IP address and the sites on the other IP address were still up and functioning well. When we contacted the support at first we were stonewalled, but eventually they said there was a problem and it was resolved within about 2 hours. Up until recently we had no problems. As a part of our ongoing SEO we check page load speed for our clients. A few days ago a client who has their site hosted by the same company was running very slow (about 8 seconds to load without cache). We ran every check we could and could not find a reason on our end. The client called the host and were told they needed to be on some other type of server (with the host) at a fee increase of roughly $10 per month. Yesterday, we noticed one group of sites on our server was down and, again, it was one IP address with about 8 sites on it. On chat with support, they kept saying it was our ISP. (We speed tested on multiple computers and were 22MB down and 9MB up +/-2MB). We ran a trace on the IP address and it went through without a problem on three occassions over about ten minutes. After about 30 minutes the sites were back up. Here's the twist: we had a couple of people in the building who were on other ISP's try and the sites came up and loaded on their machines. Does anyone have any idea as to what the issue is?
Technical SEO | | RobertFisher0