+- ispCP - Board - Support (http://www.isp-control.net/forum)
+-- Forum: ispCP Omega Support Area (/forum-30.html)
+--- Forum: Preinstallation Questions (/forum-31.html)
+--- Thread: ISPCP working with more machines ? (/thread-11433.html)
ISPCP working with more machines ? - andrej90 - 08-19-2010 11:00 PM
Is there any way to setup ispcp to work with more machines?By that i mean, to separate dns,mail and web server.For each one of them to have their own machine.Is that possible ?
Thank you. Btw. sorry for my bad english
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - kilburn - 08-19-2010 11:16 PM
Dns can be separated by sharing the bind's cache directory through nfs, although it might be tricky to know when zones have to be reloaded (icron maybe?).
Likewise, mail can probably be separated through nfs sharing, but I would expect some caveats in this front.
Separating the database is a no-brainer (just change the host in ispcp.conf and you're ready to go).
Finally, separating websites from the panel itself is the hardest part, and makes no sense IMHO.
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - andrej90 - 08-19-2010 11:31 PM
(08-19-2010 11:16 PM)kilburn Wrote: Dns can be separated by sharing the bind's cache directory through nfs, although it might be tricky to know when zones have to be reloaded (icron maybe?).
Likewise, mail can probably be separated through nfs sharing, but I would expect some caveats in this front.
Separating the database is a no-brainer (just change the host in ispcp.conf and you're ready to go).
Finally, separating websites from the panel itself is the hardest part, and makes no sense IMHO.
Thanks I'll give it a try
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - momo - 08-25-2010 04:23 AM
Thanks kilburn,
@andrej90 : Any positive feedback?
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - BioALIEN - 08-25-2010 11:47 PM
There is a HowTo for multi-server ispCP setup. Search the forums and the Docs
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - momo - 08-26-2010 12:35 AM
Hello
I did read both HowTo a few times.
I would need a WhyTo.
Have a main server with IspCP and approx 15000 mail/day.
It is a quad and I would like to NFS mail to a Celeron with 100mbit Ethernet.
The problem is I can't figure pros and cons.
Any recommandations would be appreciated
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - momo - 09-19-2010 09:58 PM
Actually, after implementing it, I am very happy with performance.
I have a gb crosslink between my servers and the IO load is reduced on my main server.
For me, bottleneck was HD, so now it is better.
Works great!
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - kilburn - 09-20-2010 09:08 PM
Hehe, I didn't see your post asking "WhyTo". There may be a couple of reasons:
- Splitting the database to be on its own host makes sense for two main reasons, especially if your websites use it a lot. First, heavy queries will be processed by the MySQL host, without overloading the webserver's CPU. Second, and usually most important, databases impose a high number I/O operations to the disk. Since rotational disks suffer greatly from this kind of workload, relieving the webserver's disk from these tasks will probably yield a noticeable performance gain.
- The reasoning behind mail processing is similar. Mails also impose a high number of I/O operations. Nevertheless, in this case the gains are even further if you use any kind of antispam/antivirus solution. This is because antispam/antivirus are CPU intensive too, so making them run out of your main server will also free a noticeable amount of computation from it.
- Separating the DNS service doesn't make that much sense for me, as it is typically a low-overhead service (unless you serve thousands of domains). Most stuff is cached (and doesn't even take much ram), so IMHO the only reason to separate the DNS service is if your server's bottleneck is the network itself.
- As I said, separating the actual websites makes no sense at all for me
RE: ISPCP working with more machines ? - momo - 09-21-2010 02:29 PM
Thanks for the extra info. +1
Oups, already gave the +1 (1 per user, didn' know)
You get an extra from me
+2