Building a server for hosting database driven websites

[jjmax]

Hi,

I run a small web development business and currently have about 20 sites hosted with a shared hosting package.
Recently there has been a lot of problems with the server being offline and sites not able to access their databases, so I am in the process of setting up a dedicated server for myself and hosting it in a datacenter.
The sites I'm currently hosting use Drupal CMS, OsCommerce and Joomla and get moderate monthly traffic - about 1,000 visits/month average, although one gets 100,000 and I expect to have more of these sites in the near future.
Altogether the bandwidth being used by these sites is 5GB/month.
My question is regarding the hardware required to run these sites and to potentiailly resell space on the server for other people's sites.
I am trying to keep costs to a minimum so the cheapest server I can get at the moment is this one - sorry can't post URL but the server is the HP ProLiant DL140 (G3) Rack Server Xeon Quad Core (E5310) 1.6GHz 2048MB (2x1024MB), the model is 470064-432.
I'm thinking of putting 2 320GB SATA HD in a RAID1 config in there also.
I plan on running Debian with Apache2/PHP5/MySQL
For myself I hope to be running this server with 50+ sites by the end of next year.
To help with the costs I'd like to also setup some kind of hosting for other developers to use.
Would this server be sufficient to perform these tasks?
Price is a major issue for me, however I don't want to invest in something that's not going to meet my needs.
Any feedback or avice is greatly appreciated.

All the best,
John

[arthurleung]

I run a small web development business and currently have about 20 sites hosted with a shared hosting package.

These packages usually have stand-alone MySQL server which gives a really high latency and very low database performance. The only advantage is that they're cheap and give loads of space and bandwidth.

Altogether the bandwidth being used by these sites is 5GB/month.

Those shared hosting service put like 500+ users on a quad core system, you can imagine how much performance you really need.

If you're only using 5GB a month you don't need any expensive server at all.
One of the server I (part-)own have a Xeon 3050 and generate 400GB of forum traffic at less than 1/5 of CPU Usage.

Your requirement will require less than a Pentium III single core dedicated server. Perhaps you should purchase a VPS instead?

If you are looking at really cheap server I would suggest Leaseweb (For Europe). That is what I'm using. But make sure you read the TOS properly.

Quad-core is absolute overkill for such purpose and you'll be just wasting money.
Go for a cheaper server. If it isn't enough, add one more, and that will still be cheaper than the quad-core server.

Setting up hosting service will require time dedication and your customers need to be able to trust you (which they probably don't if your "service" only consists of a single server).

If you want easy management, you can purchase Cpanel with servers so you can manage sites easily, but that usually cost quite a lot. Alternatively you can setup Webmin for free.

[jjmax]

Hi Arthurleung,

Thanks for the reply, very informative.
I've looked at the VPS option too, but I'm based in Ireland and most of my customers are also and the VPS options here aren't great. Maybe I'm placing too much emphasis on geographic server location for SEO?
Your feedback has helped clear up my problem, namely will the server suffice. At this stage I'll go for overkill as recent experiences with my current host(one of the bigger and better ones here) has left me with some unhappy customers.
I'm also worried about the pitfalls of running my own hardware (replacements, security, etc...) but I have to take a punt on this and hope for a bit of luck (just a tiny bit) until I get a firmer footing.

It's been hard to get concrete information on this. I suppose that's because there's no right and wrong answer as each case is different, so thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Maybe if I get my server up and running I can post some details about it and what it took to get it working.

John

[Nemeliza]

Without posting the spec of the current server you are using it is difficult to determine if the replacement will do a 'better' job, however I agree with arthurleung the spec you have provided looks like serious overkill.
Your problem seems to be down to the current server falling over, rather than it being capable of performing accordingly.

If you don't want the burden of owning and managing hardware you could lease hardware rather than purely colocating although i'm not sure if this will work out cheaper in the long run, although you will have someone to shout out if hardware fails.
As you said work out why the current server is falling over as you may end up moving the problem to a new server. Despite this, depending on the criticality of your uptime it may be worth having another server ready just in case yours falls over, not the cheapest option but a good risk analysis will determine if it's required.

Nemz.

[jjmax]

Thanks for that Nemeliza,

I'll try and get specs of the current server but I don't know if my current host will be in the mood to share!
I didn't get into a shouting match with them since all the trouble has started, which is a new thing for me, but I have the feeling they're a tad ashamed of the way they've dealt with the issues I've been having.
It is nice to have someone to shout at once in a while but my anger management course tells me this is the wrong way to deal with problems
Thanks again for your feedback, this information is helping to give me a clearer view of what I need to aim for.

John

[yamangman]

Personally with such a small number of sites I would suggest just switching your hosting to a reputable company. Titan Internet are good, we host approx 500 sites with them. There are of course others.