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
-
Devaluing certain content to push better content forward
Hi all, I'm new to Moz, but hoping to learn a lot from it in hopes of growing my business. I have a pretty specific question and hope to get some feedback on how to proceed with some changes to my website. First off, I'm a landscape and travel photographer. My website is at http://www.mickeyshannon.com - you can see that the navigation quickly spreads out to different photo galleries based on location. So if a user was looking for photos from California, they would find galleries for Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, the Redwoods and San Francisco. At this point, there are probably 600-800 photos on my website. At last half of these are either older or just not quite up to par with the quality I'm starting to feel like I should produce. I've been contemplating dumbing down the galleries, and not having it break down so far. So instead of four sub-galleries of California, there would just be one California gallery. In some cases, where there are lots of good images in a location, I would probably keep the sub-galleries, but only if there were dozens of images to work with. In the description of each photo, the exact location is already mentioned, so I'm not sure there's a huge need for these sub-galleries except where there's still tons of good photos to work with. I've been contemplating building a sort of search archive. Where the best of my photos would live in the main galleries, and if a user didn't find what they were looking for, they could go and search the archives for older photos. That way they're still around for licensing purposes, etc. while the best of the best are pushed to the front for those buying fine art prints, etc. These pages for these search archives would probably need to be de-valued somehow, so that the main galleries would be more important SEO-wise. So for the California galleries, four sub-galleries of perhaps 10 images each would become one main California gallery with perhaps 15 images. The other 25 images would be thrown in the search archive and could be searched by keyword. The question I have - does this sound like a good plan, or will I really be killing my site when it comes to SEO by making such a large change? My end goal would be to push my better content to the front, while scaling back a lot of the excess. Hopefully I explained this question well. If not, I can try to elaborate further! Thanks, Mickey
Technical SEO | | msphotography0 -
Has anyone had their Google manual spam penalty lifted without notice?
In June of this year, our company submitted a reconsideration request, which Google rejected and confirmed that they had a manual spam penalty placed on us. After cleaning up our extensive link portfolio, we submitted our 2nd reconsideration at the end of this month (July) and received this response: Dear site owner or webmaster of domain, We received a request from a site owner to reconsider domain for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We reviewed your site and found no manual actions by the webspam team that might affect your site's ranking in Google. There's no need to file a reconsideration request for your site, because any ranking issues you may be experiencing are not related to a manual action taken by the webspam team. Of course, there may be other issues with your site that affect your site's ranking. Google's computers determine the order of our search results using a series of formulas known as algorithms. We make hundreds of changes to our search algorithms each year, and we employ more than 200 different signals when ranking pages. As our algorithms change and as the web (including your site) changes, some fluctuation in ranking can happen as we make updates to present the best results to our users. If you've experienced a change in ranking which you suspect may be more than a simple algorithm change, there are other things you may want to investigate as possible causes, such as a major change to your site's content, content management system, or server architecture. For example, a site may not rank well if your server stops serving pages to Googlebot, or if you've changed the URLs for a large portion of your site's pages. This article has a list of other potential reasons your site may not be doing well in search. If you're still unable to resolve your issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team Has anyone else or their clients experienced this recently? Can this be attributed to the "softer" Panda update? Any other additional information is greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | eugeneku0 -
What can i do to get google to visit my site more often
Hi, i am having serious problems since i upgraded my website from joomla 1.5 to 3.0 We have dropped down the rankings from page one for the word lifestyle magazine, and we have dropped down in rankings for other very important words including gastric band hypnotherapy and i am starting to regret having the site upgraded. i am finding the google is taking its time visiting my site, i know this for two reasons, one i have checked the cache and it is showing the 2nd july and i have checked articles that we have written and they are still not showing. example if i put this article name in word for word it does not come up, Carnival Divert Ships In The Caribbean Due To bad Weather this was an article that was done yesterday. in the old days before the upgrade that would have been in google now. these problems are costing us the loss of a great deal of traffic, we are losing around 70% of our traffic since the upgrade and would be grateful if people could give me advice on how to turn things around. we add articles all the time. each day we add a number of articles, i was considering changing the front page in the middle and having a few paragraphs of the latest story to get google to visit more often. i know this would look messy but i am running out of ideas. any help would be great
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
I have a 404 error on my site i can't find.
I have looked everywhere. I thought it might have just showed up while making some changes, so while in webmaster tools i said it was fixed.....It's still there. Even moz pro found it. error is http://mydomain.com/mydomain.com No idea how it even happened. thought it might be a plugin problem. Any ideas how to fix this?
Technical SEO | | NateStewart0 -
600+ Visitors a day after 6 months, can you do it?
So since the Penguin update the clients of the company I work for have gradually been losing traffic and money. Noone (except for me) has noticed this yet and connected the dots. Yesterday we all get called in to have a bollocking and the manager asks the head of our department if he would be confident of being able to get 600+ visitors a day to an 'average website' that has just started up, to which he replied 'yes'. Since I started here back in February there has not been a single new client that has been able to gain that many visitors (many have not gained even 25% of that figure), which in the post-panda and post-pegnuin world, I find completely understandable. When I first started here they were using SEO 'tactics' which people used to employ 5+ years ago and didn't even use exact match keyword data.I have had a few talks with them about how SEO has changed over the last few years and they still don't seem to understand that it is now significantly more difficult to gain traffic using SEO than it once was. If you were asked about the same question, thinking about the 'average' client you might get, would you be confident enough to guarantee that at the 6 month mark they would be getting 600+ visitors a day?
Technical SEO | | Kinsel0 -
How can something be duplicate content of itself?
Just got the new crawl report, and I have a recurring issue that comes back around every month or so, which is that a bunch of pages are reported as duplicate content for themselves. Literally the same URL: http://awesomewidgetworld.com/promotions.shtml is reporting that http://awesomewidgetworld.com/promotions.shtml is both a duplicate title, and duplicate content. Well, I would hope so! It's the same URL! Is this a crawl error? Is it a site error? Has anyone seen this before? Do I need to give more information? P.S. awesomewidgetworld is not the actual site name.
Technical SEO | | BetAmerica0 -
How do I know which page a link is from
I've got an interesting situation. I hope you can help. I have a list of links but I'm not sure which pages of my site they are from. How do I know which page a specific link is from? Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | VinceWicks0 -
Grr . . . Just can't seem to get there
mrswitch.com.au is one site that we are consistantly struggling with . . . It has a page rank of 3 which beats most of the competitors, but when it comes to Google AU searches such as Sydney Electrician and Electrician Sydney etc, we just can't seem to get there and the rankings keep dropping. We backlink and update the pages on a regular basis Any ideas? - Could it be the custom CMS system?
Technical SEO | | kayweb0