Gabriel Wicke wrote:
In the case of the Squids it wouldn't exactly be a
case of 'survive on
one'. A Pentium 2.4 or similar with 4Gigs of Ram will do at the very
minimum 15 times the current traffic, i would bet it will do 25 times the
current load.
Oh, o.k., I'm convinced then. 1 squid with a heartbeat friend ready to
takeover (and/or load balanced as well) is good.
I'd propose to get going as soon as possible with
at least 6 Apaches, 2
Squids, 2 DBs and 2 Fileservers (propably one of them combined with DB?),
plus mail/dns box. Once that's running we can add a third Squid and more
Apaches or Dbs- depending on the load we observe.
I like the idea of 6 apaches.
I want to think more about fileservers today. I'm assuming that those
are primarily for the images? Can/should they be more or less the same
configuration as the 6 apaches?
I think there's enormous flexibility benefits of having lots of
identical hardware, *when it makes sense* to do so. When it doesn't
make sense, it doesn't. I.E. if we have 1 box that needs to be
'bigger' in some ways, there's no sense in spending money on 6 other
boxes just to make them all identical.
But if the requirements are roughly similar for different roles, then
we shouldn't try to overspecialize the hardware, I think.