[NBLUG/talk] Multiple Server Setup Advice

[troy]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:16:30AM -0700, Walter Hansen wrote:
> 
>      I've currently got a Pentium 166 with 128megs as a server running
> apache, serving as a router, serving files with samba, doing minor
> mail services, ssh, and runing mySQL. Recently I got some more
> hardware and was thinking about spreading the services a little. I've
> got another P-166 and a Pentium Pro 200. However I'm tempted to use
> the PP200 for a user machine and regulate the current user machine, a
> P150 to server use. The question there is would a PP200 make a better
> user-98 box or a better server?

I think the ppro with its much faster L2 cache would be better utilized
as a server.  Give it enough ram (128-256MB) and it should be able to
handle all your server needs.  it will perform much better than your
P166 despite only a 33 Mhz jump in processer speed.

Personally, for electricity, noise and space reasons I prefer as few
machines running as necessary.  I also think that *generally speaking*
that model would improve security because you fewer machines to
maintain.  I say "generally" because there are many situations where
segregating services is useful.  Providing a shell to untrusted users,
for instance, should be on a machine that is as isolated as possible.

>      My main question is how should I split things up to improve flow. The
> network is 10bT. I'm kinda thinking I should put the router on the
> low end box and have it handle routing and ssh. Then use the higher
> end box for the webserver (or mySQL server). Then combine the samba
> and mySQL on one midrange server. Or I could build a P100 for the
> router/ssh and just split it webserver/fileserver/database server?

It's hard to say how to split things up (should you go that route)
without more knowledge of your typical usage but to use the word
"generally" again,  things tend to take up CPU in this order: Mysql,
samba, web.  In your situation, it sounds like the file serving might
use most CPU.

>      I'm getting about a hundred hits per day on the webserver, double
> that if you count search engine robots. The file server only supports
> at most two users at a time. The database server would have a similar
> usage from users, but would support the webserver as well. I just
> feel like its getting to be a lot for a poor little 166 to do and I
> think it might improve security to split things up.

What's "top" say about things during load?  From what you've described,
I'd think even a P166 could handle the job.  Does it get noticably
slower with a few people using it?  If so, it may be more RAM bound than
anything else.  Or maybe a dog-slow disk.

>       With at most two or three users surfing arround, how much power is
> needed for the router? I almost think I should just buy one. I'm
> using firestarter for routing/NAT/firewall services.

I'm of the mind that it doesn't pay to have a big, (relatively) power
hungry box on all the time to provide routing/NAT when a small consumer
device will do the trick.  The device should pay for itself in
electricity savings within a year.  I have a box doing NAT only because
it's providing a bunch of other services as well. (and i like to play)

> ps Go ahead and snicker at my crappy hardware.

hehe, a P90 handled just about everything here for many moons.  It was
only when I got tired of how long it took to resize images for a web
gallery that I threw more hardware at it.

-troy