Hi can anyone let me know which is the better server

[ClaireH-184886]

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 Card

and the second one is,

Intel Atom 330 1MB L2 Cache 1.6GH

500GBStorage
4GBRAM
10TBBandwidth

if you can please let me know the difference and which one is better for speed and for memory for a large site.

many thanks

[ThompsonPaul]

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

[ClaireH-184886]

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

[ThompsonPaul]

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

[ClaireH-184886]

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

[ClaireH-184886]

thank you for that, i will go with that one then, many thanks

[ThompsonPaul]

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

[malecce]

Yes Oleg is right

The first server is sure the better than the second.

1. The Cpu si more faster

2. The memory is more..

Ciao

Maurizio

[OlegKorneitchouk]

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).