RE: [SAC] Server specifications

Thanks for the endorsement Daniel.

I believe that Frank has already added iWeb to the wiki. I'd prefer to
start with a single server, but splitting out project tools from
bandwidth-intensive items like downloads really makes a lot o sense.


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Morissette []
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:12
Cc:; Robert Bray; Donald Mennie
Subject: Re: [SAC] Server specifications

Jason Birch wrote:

I'm currently favouring fully managed servers such as Rackspace and
LiquidWeb because of the security they give us for uptime, and because

they take away the need for us to pay for day-to-day OS and core
application management. I have added a couple unmanaged servers to
the list, and if anyone has any particularly good experiences with
high-availability co-los, I'd appreciate some guidance so that we can
present some alternatives. However, I don't know that we want to take

on responsibility for our own hardware; our resources are stretched
enough as it is.

If you're looking for alternatives, FYI the server has
been hosted at iWeb on a dedicated server (iWeb MyServerNow) for almost
a year now and everything has gone very smoothly so far. See

I did a quick search and didn't find the SLA terms, but I believe Frank
has his domain hosted there as well and could comment on his
experience. generated 189.6GB of downloads in September and this number
is increasing by 10-15GB per month these days, so you cannot go with a
provider where bandwidth is expensive or where you get less than

In our case we have other co-located servers with another more expensive
provider and used to host the stuff there too, but we ended
up moving just the downloads and websites to iWeb because
bandwidth was much cheaper there... and we kept our more critical stuff
with the other provider.

You might want to consider a hybrid config like this as well.

Daniel Morissette