Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > InterWorx Server Management
InterWorx Server Management
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 08:00 AM |
| Hello!
I want to have a server with an InterWorx control panel.
Sadly, PlatinumServerManagement, the company I was planning to go with for server management doesn't support InterWorx.
What can you recommend? As a benchmark: PSM was 30$/ month (almost all services included)
I also see the need to learn more about server management myself. Could someone please point me to the right direction where I can find good resources dealing with this topic?
|
| Posted by tsj5j, 07-28-2007, 08:04 AM |
| PSM is probably one of the cheapest, and this is an obscure panel.
Be prepared for a 5x to 1xx cost.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 08:27 AM |
| Hello tsj5j,
thank you very much for your fast answer.
Can you please explain what you mean with "obscure panel"? The reasons I would like to go with InterWorx are especially:
1. No extra prices. cPanel would be 30$ a month extra.
2. InterWorx can manage clustering/ load balancing out of the box.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-28-2007, 08:53 AM |
| Interworx is double on resources and very slow.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 09:21 AM |
| Hello D'Godown,
do you maybe have a resource referring to a comparison of the performance of the different control panels?
I have read some good things about InterWorx and some people claim it's their absolut first choice. Of course, single opinions are usually kind of subjective. So if hard facts really support your statement that would be a good reason to overthink my decision to go with InterWorx.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-28-2007, 09:49 AM |
| Yeah it maybe first choice because of clustered and load balancing features, But as far as i have observed, it consumes 450MB+ in idle condition and the interface loads very slow, for example when you add a subdomain or whatever, it takes too long to load.
The best bet is check yourself on a live environment. I also thought its a better panel, But I came back as soon as i used it.
If you ask me, The best option is either directadmin or lxadmin, You will not need a management compant to handle things with them, Since DA have a custom apache tool which installs server components in a flash.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 12:44 PM |
| Hi D'Godown!
Thanks for your answer. I would be happy if I could manage my server(s) myself. But I have no experience in this field. Especially, I am concerned about security issues. Also, I do not know what server optimization is able to achieve. I need to run some sripts that consume a lot of resources. So scalability is a point. Like you say InterWorx would be a good start to integrate a cluster and load balancing. In case, the server is down or hacked or some other errors occur, I believe I cannot expect much help from my hoster when I have an unmanaged server. On the other hand due to a small budget, I am not able to pay much more than PSM server management would cost. And this seems to be difficult to find another server management company that supports a control panel other than cPanel and offers a reasonable and good service.
Can someone here who manages his server himself give me some advise? There is a list at platinumservermanagement's website with their service included. I read somewhere that most of it could be done by simply running some scripts. Do you know of a good package that include the most important scripts for this task? Again, I am not sure if I could handle this alone due to no experience in this field. But I am willing to learn from you. What are the most important things I need to know in server management?
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-28-2007, 12:59 PM |
| Hi,
I can advice you the some things:
1. If you are worried about secirity issues, the more chances/threats are related to script holes, which no server company will ever support.
2. For basic hardening like APF, BFP, etc can be installed in a flash which is none of a difficult task, and i can happily assist you with them.
3. If you are a little proficient in SSH, and know some basic commands I encourage you to explore yourself everything, Its nothing to worry this much.
4. I can suggest you either directadmin or lxadmin, since they are less confusing and less resource hogs.
5. You can first start management yourself and if you see thinsg going wrong, You can easily hire management companies at a later stage.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 01:37 PM |
| Hi D'Godown,
thank you very much for your great advise and help.
Do you know what is a good and cheap solution to handle clustering and load balancing with direct admin? That InterWorx is slower in the backend would not annoy me so much as long the site has the same speed for the enduser.
I believe especially I do need to be able to do the following:
1. Initial server setup
2. Install and upgrade Backend Server Software (PHP, Mysql etc.)
3. Install and upgrade 3rd Party Software (Ioncube, ImageMagick etc.)
4. Backup management
5. System Security, Optimization and Hardening (Firewall, Anti DoS, Mysql hardening etc.)
6. Monitor the server
Is there for example a tutorial available where the most important parts in server management are described along with recommendations of software/ scripts usage for server management?
Handling the server management oneself has of course some advantages in getting a better understanding of the technical issues. So it might be a god challenge.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-28-2007, 01:47 PM |
| Hi,
Yeah It will be no slow for enduser, But be using kinda more resources. Since it doesnt uses the OS httpd but uses its own instances of httpd.
1. Initial server setup: Your provider will install the panel. You will need some components like Curl, GD, Eaccelerator, Zend optimiser etc as some scripts need them preinstalled. Most of providers do install these all if you request them.
2. All backend daemons, httpd, ftpd, bind/djbdns mail servers are always integrated in control panels, You need not bother install them manually, Its what control panel is for.
3. Ioncube is shipped with scripts itself and it doesnt need installing. Imagemagick, yes it need to get installed but yout provider can ship your server preinstalled with no issue, if you request them.
4. A rsynch backup solution is best and its cheapest form of packups.
5. Hardening and firewalls can be installed reading how-to tutorials. There are lot of threads in WHT technical category.
6. Subscribe Unialert, it is free, sends SMs for everychange, and it monitors every 5 minutes.
I can recommend handling yourself since you will not be dependable on any other this way, You will not need to wait and save some bucks as well.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 02:09 PM |
| Hi D'Godown,
let me say I am very happy for your help and I want to thank you.
Now, I will first have a look at the resources and tips you offered and read around a bit.
I am glad I joined this forum.
Best wishes!
|
| Posted by aurohosting, 07-28-2007, 02:22 PM |
| D'Godown,
Excellent assistance.
It is people like you who make WHT proud by your valuable contributions here.
Regards,
Dingloo
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 03:42 PM |
| For rsync, I found http://bqbackup.com. Has anyone experience with this company?
I was thinking about using 2 hard drives and RAID for backup before. Can I use rsync and for example http://bqbackup.com >INSTEAD< of RAID to save some money? I believe, there is only one backup then per day, so in worst case I will lose data, is it correct or is there a workaround with rsync to also be on the safe site?
As an alternative, I could use RAID 5 and my hosters internal network for a quite low rate. I read that RAID 5 can cause some problems (e.g. "write hole"). What might be the better choice?
I tried this service and it looks really great!
Last edited by app11; 07-28-2007 at 03:52 PM.
|
| Posted by midwestwebsites, 07-28-2007, 05:19 PM |
| Network backup is never a replacement for RAID hard drive redundancy if you're looking for ultimate uptime. If you just care about protecting your data and can stand to loose a few hours when one of your drives fail, then you might be able to get by with network backup, but I'd personally never recommend that.
As far as server management goes, try checking with Acunett.com to see if they might fit the bill for you. They offer both one time and monthly management plans to help you out.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 06:10 PM |
| Hi midwestwebsites,
Thank you. I will have a look at this company. I have read a bit now about server management and more and more I believe it would be good to learn myself how to properly handle it. Also, I cannot afford most server management offers at the moment. Of course, this will need some time and maybe (hopefully not) I will make a lot of mistakes. But in the long run I think it could be a good investment and know-how to run a serious web service.
In the beginning, downtime would not be the biggest problem for me, but losing customers' data would be absolutely horrible. So, I better will not use this web-backup-service.
I could go with RAID 5 and the internal network of my hoster. So, I believe when the hard drive in my server fails, the site will go down. But I will not lose customers' data cause it is backuped till the downtime via RAID 5. Is it correct? So, what do you think about RAID 5?
(Note: Here is a link to the backup solution of my hoster I am talking about: http://www.ubiquityservers.com/more/...-solutions.php)
Edit: I have reread the offer above and now I understand it like it is only a normal backup via FTP and only the backup is secured via RAID 5. In this case it does not really seem appropriate for an incremental backup of my hard drive, right? So, I am not a native English...
(After I can expand my budget I will look for some 15k RPM SCSI Hard Disks and RAID what seems to be a good solution to avoide downtime but until then I need a solution to not lose customers' data)
Last edited by app11; 07-28-2007 at 06:24 PM.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-28-2007, 06:18 PM |
| Well app11 & dingloo, thanks for kind comments.
As midwestwebsites said, Offsite backup is never a replacement of RAID, But there are particular things to notice while getting a RAID based system, A BBU RAID card is very preferred, Since it has its own battery So very less chance to get data corrupted in a power ourage. Get quality hardware like 3Ware.
And not going the RAID way is cheaper, But for a better performance you may opt for a Raptor or SAS as your single drive, which may boost your box's performance by upto 25%. These discs have almoust double MTBF then simple SATA2 Discs.
RAID5 is a complicated setup with less I/O performance and its only implemented where you need tons of space,You should use it if you really needs a tons of webspace (which a lot of people dont ever need). For DB hosting RAID5 is not muhc effectient. RAID5 will not give you downtime in an event of a single disc Failed, and in a setup like RAID5EE you may have multiple discs failing but still doesnt effect the system. It will ofcourse have multiple redundant discs. But if you really have this much budget you should seek a RAID 10.
EDIt : For offsite backup, YEs bqbackup is very reputed in WHT, and Gnax/Steadfast also provide remote backup accounts.
|
| Posted by midwestwebsites, 07-28-2007, 06:21 PM |
| Quite honestly, if you're dealing with customer data, I suggest that you don't use your server as your playground for learning how to administrate a linux box. You'd be far better off getting a server and paying someone to manage it, and then buy someone's old PC off ebay and stick linux on it to play with. I guarantee you that if you try to "learn as you go" you are going to make mistakes. It's part of the learning process. Risking your own data is one thing if you're trying that approach, but risking your customer's data is just playing with fire. There are too many security loopholes and mistakes to make that I would highly recommend paying a good management company.
As far as RAID goes, I would recommend that you run both RAID AND network backup. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear in my last post. For us, we use RAID, a spare drive used for backups, and network backup. While some might consider this overkill, I personally would rather be safe than sorry.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 07:07 PM |
| D'Godown:
I am planning to run only a cheap single server first. The next step would be to buy a much better box and use it as a dedicated database server and the first one as the webserver. Then with InterWorx add other web servers one after another and produce a small cluster with load balancing. Only when the site will outgrow the database server there would be the need for a more complex set up and maybe I could use ultra monkey or other solutions for a redundant cluster including a database cluster.
In the database server I would like to use RAID for mirroring the mysql databases as soon as I can afford it.
Do you mind having a small look at http://www.ubiquityservers.com/more/server-hardware.php and telling me what could be a good set up for the RAID? I am not sure what kind of RAID is possible with this hardware.
@ midwestwebsites:
I have some time until I want to go public and try to learn what is possible. Do you think it could be enough to simply follow a tutorial like http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=616368. I am not sure but I can't really believe company's like PSM would do much more than installing and running some scripts to set up a server. Of course I could be wrong. There is a list at their site what they are doing specificly.
If I am not optimistic to be able to protect the server myself after some learning I (of course) need to have a look for a server management company like the one you mentioned. Also, for InterWorx ecpecially there do not seem to be so many alternatives.
|
| Posted by JordanJ, 07-28-2007, 07:57 PM |
| May I suggest if 30 is a huge extra expense for you to go with the industry standard, then maybe you should look into an alternative business model.
|
| Posted by JordanJ, 07-28-2007, 08:18 PM |
| Cpanel isnt needed if your running just one website, id look into just getting a basic LAMP server and hiring someone like TSS to manage it for you.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-28-2007, 11:17 PM |
| Hi Gnax|Jordan,
What do you mean with "industry standard? cPanel?
30 itself is not a huge extra expense. But for 30 I haven't seen proper Server Management for InterWorx. Using cPanel would be 30 for the control panel + 30 for Platinumservermanagement for example. That is 60 extra pro Server. Also cPanel is not able to provide clustering and load balancing. And moreover PlatinumServerManagement does not provide load balancing solutions what I have read.
I want to have a set up from the beginning that is ready for growth/ scalability.
PlatinumServerManagement seems to need some very short time to set up a server and for hardening and optimizing. So, almost all the software they use seeems to be open source. Therefore, if one knows the exact steps to perform one should able to produce the same results. I don't really know yet but there seem to be some good tutorials and experts here. D'Godown also mentioned that most security issues result from bugs in third party scripts and therewith the server managament companys don't help. Therefore, I believe it is not a bad idea to learn as much as possible oneself. (A lot of "seem" in this paragraph so :-)
What is TSS?
Last edited by app11; 07-28-2007 at 11:23 PM.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-29-2007, 12:04 AM |
| More and more I am wondering: how good are the server management companys really? PSM for example is called one of the best Server Management Companys in this forum so far I have noticed.
For example I found this thread about problems with PSM. http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpo...85&postcount=7 Okay, compared to all the good reviews about PSM some bad reviews usually would not matter that much I believed.
But then I read from PSM itself: "In almost 1 year he [the person who complained] submitted "370 TICKETS" for only 2 servers"
What is this? Almost every other week he must have had problems with the servers. Even though PSM solved them all that means the client was allover involved into server problems.
I read in other threads that clients submitted a lot of tickets too.
The questions for me is not that much if the server management comany is able to solve all the problems. The question is more: how arise all these problems on an average server?
I was expecting in case of paying a server management company I would not have to do anything with server problems MOST of the time. But what is realistic? How many problems do appear on an average server approximately in a week or month? Very confusing.
|
| Posted by ServerManagement, 07-29-2007, 12:16 AM |
| The amount of tickets a user submits is not a reflection on how good or bad the support is. We provide support to a very wide variety of customers, ranging from novices to pros. Some people open a ticket to do everything they need done on the server side, even if it's just to setup an email address or add a domain. Others just open tickets for problems that arise. But the few people you see saying they submitted such high volumes of tickets are "not" the average. Our average client submits less than 5 tickets per month.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-29-2007, 12:40 AM |
| Hello ServerManagement,
thank you very much for your reply and good that you clarified this. I believe the overall great reviews for your service speak for your quality. Also, that I have a hard time to find some comparable service that supports InterWorx.
Do you plan to support InterWorx in the future or could give me a recommendation?
|
| Posted by JordanJ, 07-29-2007, 02:10 AM |
| www.totalserversolutions.com is the only management company I know to really take on some of the more custom jobs.
|
| Posted by ServerManagement, 07-29-2007, 10:31 AM |
| We don't plan on offering support for other panels anytime soon. But it's always a possibility in the future
You may want to contact InterWorx or the datacenter offering it and see who they recommend, that's probably the best way to find who can best assist you with that.
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 07-30-2007, 02:03 AM |
| Could you please provide something to back this up referencing the "non-obscure" control panel you're speaking of? For every control panel I'm familiar with, the exact opposite comparison is true - and we've tested it.
In fact, before Ubiquity even went to InterWorx, we stress tested several different environments in our free web hosting test environment. cPanel crashed at 4 hour intervals with 3,000 accounts - we ran up to 8,500 active accounts on a single InterWorx Dual Xeon 2.66 (starting from the migrated 3,000 accounts and expanding from there). In terms of being lightweight and efficient, there are others that are pretty good too (Direct Admin, to name one)- but to say InterWorx is "double" anything is about as far from the truth as I think you could be.
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 07-30-2007, 02:19 AM |
| app11 - have you checked with anyone in Ubiquity's customer service team about the possible solutions? We're able to offer pretty much any backup solution under the sun, and are always happy to give out free advice. We also provide a pretty wide variety of management packages on InterWorx servers, starting small, and upwards to the clustering goals you've referenced.
Feel free to contact me directly if you'd like to talk about the options we already have available to you, my direct office line is (312) 281-5101 ext. 302, AIM is ubiquitycorey, MSN is coreynorthcutt@hotmail.com .
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-30-2007, 11:48 AM |
| Sorry for late reply qwidjib0, Well if you compare it anything based on number of accounts, I can assure you that such a node with any panel can have 8500 accounts hosted, and if your cpanel crashed it was only your bad httpd settings, I have seen free hosting servers with 12.5k cpanel accounts (using ipanel) and on less powerul CPU then dual xeon, Yes and they are optimised perfectly so work well.
It was surely your httpd conf which made the daemons crash at any given time. It has none to do with the panel since panel is just a layer of interface, But since Interworx use the daemons in such a way that the httpd runs as separate instances which is a the main resource hogging.
I can still saying what i said before, and where do you see a problem:
1. What I observed what that interworx consumes ~450-480 MB of RAM even when it is idle, no external mysql/apache request is generating. If you have access to interworx license, you may easily check as a nodeworx login always 400+. On the other hand DA runs like 180-200 MB RAM in idle condition, This way interworx is using more thern double resources, It maybe nothing much for the guys who own beefy servers but for small servers with 1GB RAM, it makes a difference.
2. Yes again the page loading is slow as compared to cpanel/DA The interface maybe good looking then both , But whenever you open any page for adding a mysql DB or to delete a domain/website, it takes too long for the refreshed page.
It maybe the best suited panel for you, But when we compare, it maynot be best for everybody.
Last edited by Woooo; 07-30-2007 at 12:01 PM.
Reason: typos
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 07-30-2007, 07:26 PM |
| If you go to http://interworx.com/products/iworx-cp/demo - you'll see a copy of InterWorx running on a VPS with 384 MB of total memory. Take a simple look at the RRD graph for RAM, remembering that Linux systems have a tendency to fill all memory available to them. The NodeWorx RRD graph breaks this down into pink (actually in use), maroon (cached), and orange (buffered). That right there shows you a complete InterWorx system using less than 400 MB of memory - OS, unique features, and all.
This is in addition to the memory used by the operating system (CentOS) on the server. With, to add, all of the features that most other panels lack - APF Firewall, ClamAV, Freschclam, SpamAssassin, AWStats, NFS Server for Clustering, and more uncommon features running, and you DO have the ability to very simply disable every single one of them with either the click of a 'stop' button or a tweak in a .conf file (though honestly - I think it would be pretty irresponsible to consider running a web server without APF Firewall).
Applications are also added from some panels, since InterWorx uses separate instances of MySQL, PHP, and Apache to run so that the control panel stays working when you customize your hosting environment, or when the public version of Apache breaks, things can still be handled quickly from the web. But - RRDTool is extremely efficient - it's the freaking successor to MRTG (http://oss.oetiker.ch/mrtg/doc/mrtg-rrd.en.html) - so while InterWorx might have a higher memory utilization on day 1 than some due to having far more features and security options- it's got the serious efficiency of round-robin databases when you actually start using it (and why run a server at all if you don't plan on using it?). For just about everything else, it's only a matter of clicking 'Stop'.
And that's all I really had to say on it; you clearly know a great deal more than the average hoster D'Godown from your input on backup solutions. Seriously, you know what a .conf file is (and I assume more), but that right there puts you ahead of 98% of the industry. While you're right that InterWorx may not necessarily be everyone's favorite choice, it's certainly not an obscure resource-gobbling leper panel either. Their staff has just spent less time designing pretty icons and dumping funds into marketing materials.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-30-2007, 07:36 PM |
| Woah, nice big post.
1. Well VPS systems have burst, so a 384 MB may work, since it can burst upto any provided level.
2. The graph is showing 400 Mb, and maroon is cached? Well I have checked the memory management using http://www.labradordata.ca/home/13 and vz parameters of getting privvmpages used. and both of them reported ~400MB, If i had access to a sysm with interworx, I could happily show the results, But i dun have
1. this is what i wrote, and it makes less resource servers a problamatic stituation.
1. I just read some topics on backup solutions, dont know much detail.
2. It was not my comment about Obscure thing, Read other posts, I just told 2 key issues, high RAM usage and slow page loading.
Last edited by Woooo; 07-30-2007 at 07:44 PM.
Reason: half posted before.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 07-30-2007, 07:55 PM |
| 1. Well yeah, this is the way to go, Go effecient in starting, and then add as you grow.
2. Yeah that s good, But to make it clear, all servers in interworx cluster wil be used for same data, they will have identical files and will balance the load. If you think that adding more servers in a interworx cluster will give you a system like h-sphere, then it will not. I hope you know the difference between a h-sphere cluster and interworx cluster, From your post i guess that you think more web/DB servers can be used for more unidentical resources, then its not.
3. Well ubiquity on this page http://www.ubiquityservers.com/more/server-hardware.php have nice addon hardware pricings, I can suggest you either dual 74 GB raptors with 9550SX model raid card which they offer as well. I am also using same config as well and it plays fast. As you can see 250GB Sata-2 is $15 per month and raptor is $25, Not much Difference in costs, unless you require a big bunch of space.
|
| Posted by app11, 07-31-2007, 12:36 AM |
| Hello D'Godown and qwidjib0,
again many thanks for your contributions and advise. I think this is a really worthwile discussion.
Respecting the InterWorx RAM usage, does it mean that running a server with only 512 MB RAM is kind of useless considering that most RAM is consumed by InterWorx? That is an important question for me cause I wanted to start with a small 512 MB RAM box?
I know that in an InterWorx cluster the webservers are used for the same data. So within the range of suitable hard drives (up to about 200GB) this should not be a problem I assume. Cause the different webservers have the exact files and are mirrors of each other I think there is no urgent need to backup these hard drives So, I don't know about the maximum recommended file storage in an InterWorx cluster. I was thinking about using low end boxes for the webservers. I believe more of the bottleneck is the database server which is used as the cluster manager and load balancer. Here I would think about using a high end box cause in InterWorx there is no chance in clustering the database machines from what I understand. The databases should be backed up carefully (at best with RAID). So, unfortunately in an InterWorx cluster the cluster manager (database server) is a possible single point of failure.
I plan to run a site that will make extensive use of databases. In case, the single database server would not be able to handle the load anymore, I assume the entire InterWorx cluster becomes unusable then.
I expect that the problem of a database server outgrow would appear earlier than a file storage outgrow of the webservers in the InterWorx cluster.
From that point it would become really difficult and expensive from what I understand.
A solution with at least two database servers is offered by ubiquity (fully managed) for 8000$/month + 8000$ setup. A site needs to be really profitable to finance this. To be honest, I am not very optimistic to earn the necessary amount of coverage for such a solution with my planned project in the short run.
An alternative could be an architecture with ultra monkey as a load balancer and a webserver cluster + dedicated mysql database cluster. I don't really know how other sites are able to run a cheap(er) load balancing cluster considering that not every project is backed up with plenty of money.
(I have to go now. I have some open questions and write further later. @qwidjib0 that is a nice offer that I can contact you personally, thank you. And again thanks to both of you for your great contributions. )
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 07-31-2007, 02:33 AM |
| Not at all - we manage masses of InterWorx Celeron servers - even a good number of VPS servers with lower allocations- they all work fantastically and I've never seen a single complaint on performance until someone insists on letting their load run up to 20.0 with an absurd level of traffic (which has nothing to do with the cp). If there are problems running without a lot of memory, it's honestly the first I've ever heard of it; and Ubiquity is one of the largest managed InterWorx partners around.
I wouldn't worry too much about the larger solutions- by the time you actually require one of the larger clustered solutions, your site's ad revenue should make that nothing really- and you definitely don't need to start with an array of 7 devices.
|
| Posted by juangake, 08-02-2007, 06:29 AM |
| I can second qwidjib0 statements. I manage & optimize Interworx servers ranging from Celerons/512MB upto Dual Xeons/2 GB and they perform nicely with no problems at all.
As for Interworx "interface slowness", you can tweak SSL a bit since it's a documented 'feature'.
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 08-05-2007, 05:52 PM |
| Just a few more clarifications following a conversation with Socheat at InterWorx to alleviate any remaining concerns there could be about InterWorx and memory usage.
- The InterWorx demo VPS is running on a Xen VPS. There's no memory bursting with Xen.
- Spamassassin and ClamAV combined use total about 160MB of RAM - which is where most of the memory usage you've referenced comes from. They can both be stopped by clicking 'Stop' in NodeWorx.
- As we talked about, InterWorx uses separate instances of Apache and MySQL from the hosted websites, for a long list of reasons. The iWorx Apache instance uses 10 threads by default, however there's a very simple howto on the InterWorx forums to throttle this down to 2 - http://interworx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2427 - which makes the memory it consumes next to nothing.
Something that lacks features / memory usage really isn't where Ubiquity's decision making has been done though. The InterWorx support team has been by far the most impressive of all of the other panels that we offer. Companies like cpanel have directly refused to answer simple questions about their panel on technicalities to us, or taken days to get back on simple issues that debilitate entire servers.
We would never approach our customers this way, and for that reason, we will continue to avoid being dependent on any software vendor that does. If InterWorx has a problem beyond the capacity of our admins, and it's rare, but when it does - we generally have several InterWorx developers personally on the server fixing the problem within the hour.
|
| Posted by app11, 08-05-2007, 09:36 PM |
| Interesting Info.
Do you own your 5 data centers? Or do you have rented rack space in data centers of third party suppliers?
|
| Posted by qwidjib0, 08-06-2007, 06:11 PM |
| Well data center is kind of a subjective term - I've heard it used to describe everything from someone's 200,000 sq. feet of brick and mortar with racks, hvacs and generators to someone's reseller web hosting account. I'll just completely detail how we're set up and let you decide on your own labels..
For each of Ubiquity's facilities, we're located in the largest available IP exchange in each city (you can find photos and specs on each building on ubiquityservers.com). Often a hosting company's data center is described as a 2k-5k square foot facility - these buildings range from 600k-2.8m square feet, and pretty much have every network service provider in the region within their walls.
We don't own these Telecom Hotel buildings.. the companies that do are people like Digital Realty Trust and CRG West, who don't really do much of anything but rent out their floor space or turnkey data center space at these hubs. We do own all IT equipment involved in our service - servers, switches, routers, remote reboot devices, and we connect directly with our primary NSP (Mzima Networks - http://mzima.net/pr20070119.html) in the same building. We also have our own field techs on-site in each city.
|
| Posted by Woooo, 08-15-2007, 03:22 PM |
| Woah, very impressive setup in 5 locations. I will wait for your specials in offers forum
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
DNS Setup (Views: 779)