Thread: Site on server downtime.

Hi,

2 dummy me questions.

1.) Is there a way to have your site hosted on two different servers? So if one server goes down the other will automatically turn on?? No down time then.

2.) What does google and yahoo have for a server? For I have never seen them down. Not saying it hasn't happened I have just never seen it.

Thanks in advance.

:flower:

Sami

Yes it can be done, expensive however in most cases

Originally Posted by grim

Yes it can be done, expensive however in most cases

Hi,

Where is the expense? I am paying three different host right now. I have more then enough bandwith on each of them. If all my sites were on one server. I just don't like the idea of putting all my eggs in one basket.

:flower:

Sami

Big companies like google and yahoo will have quite a few servers and back-up servers all around the world. Not only for downtime, but because of the amount of traffic they get going through their servers they need to spread it out (i.e. if someone cant connect or times out connecting to one server then it'll try the next one).

I'm not sure how to do it though. Mainly because i'm not sure how the domain/website retrieval works when it's put into a browser. I know each domain has an IP and the browser sends a request to that IP for that domains info, but if the domain is hosted in multiple servers then surely it would have multiple IP's?
I'm just confusing myself now, so probably best not to take much of what i've said into account.

Hi ^ :lol:

I always think of thing that are never as simple as they might seem. But i do not want to give up some day I'll have a great one that works.

:flower:

Sami

Originally Posted by Sami4u

Hi,

Where is the expense? I am paying three different host right now. I have more then enough bandwith on each of them. If all my sites were on one server. I just don't like the idea of putting all my eggs in one basket.

:flower:

Sami

It's not just as simple as having the sites on each server, especially if running sql data bases.

If it's a simple site, never updated, etc you would add the site to each server, and have all name servers with your registar for a simple solution.

Originally Posted by grim

It's not just as simple as having the sites on each server, especially if running sql data bases.

If it's a simple site, never updated, etc you would add the site to each server, and have all name servers with your registar for a simple solution.

Hi,

Just so I am understanding you right all of my celebrity sites that are not on wordpress I can move to each server and just add the name server to the extra boxes at godaddy?

Is the order of the name server boxs at godaddy how the site is shown?

So if the first one is not responding it just goes to the sec and so on?

Sami

Originally Posted by Sami4u

Hi,

Just so I am understanding you right all of my celebrity sites that are not on wordpress I can move to each server and just add the name server to the extra boxes at godaddy?

Is the order of the name server boxs at godaddy how the site is shown?

So if the first one is not responding it just goes to the sec and so on?

Sami

yes and you could give it a try, but it does have possible problems. Each and every time the site is updated in any way, ALL COPIES need to be updated on all servers 'any changes'

Originally Posted by grim

yes and you could give it a try, but it does have possible problems. Each and every time the site is updated in any way, ALL COPIES need to be updated on all servers 'any changes'

Hi,

I will give this a try later this week or next weekend.

Next dummy me question.

Is there away to force a site down to see/test if it goes to the next server?

Sami

Not 100% sure on how to accomplish that. Even if you suspend an account the server will still have it's name servers live...
It's not the site you have to worry about for a test, but the name servers/server itself.

You have no content that changes? Email addresses? Even stats will be effected. Not really worth it IMHO

Hi,

I have a few site that I have not done one thing to them from the day I put them online. Never made a change or update. Just left them the way I bought them. Been to busy with adding post in my wordpress to make the changes on them.

:flower:

Sami

Originally Posted by Sami4u

Hi,

I have a few site that I have not done one thing to them from the day I put them online. Never made a change or update. Just left them the way I bought them. Been to busy with adding post in my wordpress to make the changes on them.

:flower:

Sami

Then you need to ask yourself, are they even worth it to have multiple servers running them?

Originally Posted by grim

Then you need to ask yourself, are they even worth it to have multiple servers running them?

Hi,

Your right they are not. ??? I was just going to try one as a test to see what would happen.

I have one odd site that make 0$ most days. But one day it could make $20-30 in a day and then nothing again for days. Clicks on the site are worth $3.50 to $7.75 a click I really would not like the one day I could make money on it that mo. it would be down

My best moneymakers are my wordpress sites. But the one I really put all my effort in makes very little But every day it is growing

Sami

Originally Posted by grim

It's not the site you have to worry about for a test, but the name servers/server itself.

Exactly. That's why hosting one site on multiple servers is done by using what's called a DNS round-robbin. The DNS server would kick request out to different IP addresses based on certain rules. For example, if X amount of users are on one server it will start redirecting requests to another IP until those slots are all full. This solution is called 'load balancing'. Another form of round-robbin is having the DNS server randomly select which IP it sends requests to. These solutions are typically used for large busy sites that use a lot of resources. Syncing the files can be done with the rsync command which can be scheduled. There might even be a better way to sync files automatically using SAMBA but it poses security risks.

Microsoft has several servers they use for log-ins on login.live.com:

Code:

Non-authoritative answer:
login.live.com  canonical name = login.live.com.nsatc.net.
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.49
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.79
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.47
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.165.136
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.77

Originally Posted by vectro

Exactly. That's why hosting one site on multiple servers is done by using what's called a DNS round-robbin. The DNS server would kick request out to different IP addresses based on certain rules. For example, if X amount of users are on one server it will start redirecting requests to another IP until those slots are all full. This solution is called 'load balancing'. Another form of round-robbin is having the DNS server randomly select which IP it sends requests to. These solutions are typically used for large busy sites that use a lot of resources. Syncing the files can be done with the rsync command which can be scheduled. There might even be a better way to sync files automatically using SAMBA but it poses security risks.

Microsoft has several servers they use for log-ins on login.live.com:

Code:

Non-authoritative answer:
login.live.com  canonical name = login.live.com.nsatc.net.
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.49
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.79
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.47
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.165.136
Name:   login.live.com.nsatc.net
Address: 65.54.186.77

Which can get very complex and costly

Originally Posted by grim

Which can get very complex and costly

Probably. I've never actually done it before, just looked into it and know it's possible since I've seen it in action once many years back.

Originally Posted by vectro

Probably. I've never actually done it before, just looked into it and know it's possible since I've seen it in action once many years back.

I've looked into it, the option I was about to go with required 3 servers just to have it balanced onto '2' all the bandwidth needed and hardware/server costs really ads up

round-robin dns would work for you, but it's not an automatic failover or load balancing.with r-r your dns server will attempt first to direct a pageview request to NS1...if your site does not load visitors would have to refresh the page. assuming there were no other dns requests in the meantime they would be directed to the ns2, etc.

Hi,

All right no simple way out. Nothing ever is.

:flower:

Sami

If ns2 responds faster from my understanding the request will hit ns2 even if ns1 is up and running...

this with a basic setup, nothing special

Look big companies like Yahoo, sify, rediff - They have own Data Centre with 10000 or more server and 24x7 server management service - so the Sites always up. (They always have spare servers) - If you are the old user of Yahoo, you could remember yahoo cut his email sending for 2-3 days.
Google, MSN, Youtube - these are big guys ! They has spare Data Centres. If you effort Spare Data Centres then 100% no downtime you will get ever.

Well, you can use spare servers for your site. [MENTAL]As like I use[/MENTAL]. but you should updated them daily !

Originally Posted by grim

If ns2 responds faster from my understanding the request will hit ns2 even if ns1 is up and running...

this with a basic setup, nothing special

That's why I use a secondary DNS service in Europe. It gives a faster route for European users.