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 I redirect a link even if the link is still on the site
Hi Folks, I've got a client who has a duplicate content because they actually create duplicate content and store the same piece of content in 2 different places. When they generate this duplicate content, it creates a 2nd link on the site going to the duplicate content. Now they want the 2nd link to always redirect to the first link, but for architecture reasons, they can't remove the 2nd link from the site navigation. We can't use rel-canonical because they don't want visitors going to that 2nd page. Here is my question: Are there any adverse SEO implications to maintaining a link on a site that always redirects to a different page? I've already gone down the road of "don't deliberately create duplicate content" with the client. They've heard me, but won't change. So, what are your thoughts? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Rock330 -
How to Let Google Know I am a new Site Owner and to Remove or De-value all backlinks?
I am looking to buy a new domain for a brand. Problem is the domain has was registered in 1996 and has around 6k backlinks (according to ahrefs) that I need removed as the old content will have no relevance to my new site. Should I just disavow all of them? Is there anything "special" I can do to let Google know that it will be new site owner/content and to remove/discount the current links?
Technical SEO | | RichardSEO0 -
Can you be penalised in Google for excessive internal keyword linking?
I have an online shop and 3 blogs (with different topics) all set up on sub-domains (for security reasons, don't want Word Press installed in the same hosting space as my shop in case one gets hacked). I have been on the front page of Google for a keyword, lets say 'widgets' for months now. I have been writing blogs about 'widgets', probably about 1/4 of all my blog posts are linking to the 'widgets' page in my shop. I write maybe 1-2 blogs a week, so it's not excessive. This morning I have woken to fine that the widgets page in my shop has vanished from Google's index. So typing in 'widgets' brings up nothing. It hasn't dropped in the rankings, it's just vanished. A few weeks ago I ranked 3 or 4. Then I dropped to about 6. A couple of days ago, i jumped back up to 5 and now it's vanished. If you type in 'buy widgets', or 'widgets online' or 'widgets australia', I have the #1 spot for all those, but for 'widgets', I just don't exist anymore. Could I have been penalised for writing too many posts and keyword linking internally? They're not keyword stuffed and they're well written. I just don't understand what's happened. Right now I"m freaking out about blogging and putting internal links on my website.
Technical SEO | | sparrowdog0 -
Can anyone speak to the pros and cons of installing mod_expire on an Apache server?
We recently had mod_deflate and mod_expire installed on our server in an attempt to improve pagespeed. They worked beautifully, at least we thought they did. Google's pagespeed insights tools evaluated our homepage at 65 before the install and 90 after...major improvement. However, we seem to be experiencing very slow load on our product pages. There is a feeling (not based on any quantifiable data) that mod_expire is actually slowing down our page load, particularly for visitors who do not have the page cached (which would probably be most visitors). Here are some pages to look at with their corresponding score from the Pagespeed Insights tool: Live Sound - 91 http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/live-sound-live-audioWireless Microphones - 90 http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/microphones Truss and Rigging - 79 http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/lighting-truss light weight product detail page 83 http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/global-truss-sq-4109-12-truss-segment heavy weight product detail page 77 http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/presonus-studiolive-16-4-2 Any thoughts from my fellow Mozzers would be greatly appreciated!
Technical SEO | | danatanseo1 -
Can Page Content & Description Have Same Content?
I'm studying my crawl report and there are several warnings regarding missing meta descriptions. My website is built in WordPress and part of the site is a blog. Several of these missing description warnings are regarding blog posts and I was wondering if I am able to copy the first few lines of content of each of the posts to put in the meta description, or would that be considered duplicate content? Also, there are a few warnings that relate to blog index pages, e.g. http://www.iainmoran.com/2013/02/ - I don't know if I can even add a description of these as I think they are dynamically created? While on the subject of duplicate content, if I had a sidebar with information on several of the pages (same info) while the content would be coming from a WP Widget, would this still be considered duplicate content and would Google penalise me for it? Would really appreciate some thoughts on this,please. Thanks, Iain.
Technical SEO | | iainmoran0 -
Is a shorter subdomain better?
For example, consider the two subdomains below: learn.bluelinkerp.com learnmore.bluelinkerp.com Would there likely be an appreciable difference between the two based on length alone? Also, would it be better to use a term that relates to our product in general such as "software.bluelinkerp.com"? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | BlueLinkERP0 -
Is there a way to let Google know our brand
Hi, our company name is trophycentral, but many companies are linking to us as trophy central (with a space in betwen trophy and central). We are seeing this in many links and I have a feeling that google is penalizing us for it (since we used to be on page one for trophies and tophy and now off the charts). Is there a way to let Google know this, maybe some sort of tag? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
How does google know a search result is a search result?
In the google webmaster forums, google specifically states that you should not include search results in the google index. What is the best way to make dynamic, great content show in search results without receiving a penalty?
Technical SEO | | nicole.healthline0