New Server

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

I've actually lost count of the number of servers in the past couple of months of hell.

Long story short, I'm trying to actually ramp up my business. I became aware that my previous server provider, OVH (and SoYouStart and Kimsufi, its sister/daughter companies) while providing good servers for cheap, support has gone downhill, taking days or longer to get a reply.

That's a problem if something goes wrong.

So I realized I needed to change. Actually, I was using Kimsufi, which is really cheap used servers. Fast for a good price, but being used means you expect them to fail at some point sooner than a newer server.

So I thought I'd upgrade to SoYouStart, their intermediate grade of server. But the server was slow and more expensive. Brilliantly, I thought paying even more money directly to OVH would solve this, but it was as slow as the mid-grade one and expensive. Argh!

I then looked at getting a couple of VPSes with SSD. That was bad, too.

Finally, I found a company with prices more like Kimsufi, but the support is as quick as OVH used to be - I put in a ticket to set reverse DNS and it was done in a few hours.

I'm still paying rather a lot more than I was, but this server at least has 16 processors / 32 cores, which means it's a beast.

I have everything (except for panelshow.group) running on it, and load is <1 pretty much all the time. So it's more than we need, but finally WHAT we need... after a couple of months of crap.

Thank you all for your patience with me. :|

Although speaking of which - from health issues back in May, I was away from this forum for a long long time in there and a lot of things languished, I was very late on replies. I'm still not certain I didn't miss something.

And in one of these moves, the like button broke and there's an error on the profiles. I haven't had a real chance to look at those yet, and still may not for a bit just because it's not a high priority, and I'm still working on getting things ready to try and attract hosting customers and such.... I've actually done a little looking but haven't found anything yet, but I'll keep working on it. I have a couple of ideas (like creating a new forum and importing the database), but stuff that takes time...

[Mariculous]

I was just about to give you a thanks, but... Well you know.

So, thank you very much for all the effort!

[Ters]

I'm still paying rather a lot more than I was, but this server at least has 16 processors / 32 cores, which means it's a beast.

Maybe that's what you web people think. At work, we gobble up such machines rather quickly. And that is nothing compared to the big players.

I'm also used to cores being the lesser number, with each core showing up as two virtual processors.

[isidoro]

Best regards, Isaac.  Get well soon.  That's the number 1 priority.

[IgorEliezer]

And in one of these moves, the like button broke and there's an error on the profiles.

Oh no! That's bad. Now I'll be forced to actually post something instead of just giving likes.

Here's your like . Get well soon. 

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

Thank you all for the well wishes.

I'm also used to cores being the lesser number, with each core showing up as two virtual processors.

Maybe I got that backwards. I'm a software guy, not a hardware guy. lol.

Also, it's a beast for my current level of clients - I have a handful, not dozens much less hundreds or thousands. lol

[DrSuperGood]

I'm also used to cores being the lesser number, with each core showing up as two virtual processors.

Maybe I got that backwards. I'm a software guy, not a hardware guy. lol.

The correct wording would be "16 cores 32 threads", at least from what I hear/read with tech news. This might be split over more than 1 socket and into multiple NUMA domains, although for such low core count it is either an old server for this to happen or is a single NUMA domain of a much larger new server that has been virtualized into a smaller server.

As an example, the current top of the line AMD EPYC server consists of 2 sockets with a total of 4 NUMA domains of 32 cores 64 threads and 4 memory channels each for a total of 128 cores, 256 threads and 16 memory channels.

This may get even more confusing if AMD CPU rumours are true. According to leaks they might be pushing out 4 way hyperthreading to x86-64 core designs for 2020 meaning that processors with 64 cores and 256 threads might become a reality. Currently this exists with other processor architectures such as IBM's PowerPC, although maybe with fewer cores.

Also, it's a beast for my current level of clients - I have a handful, not dozens much less hundreds or thousands. lol

I have everything (except for panelshow.group) running on it, and load is <1 pretty much all the time. So it's more than we need, but finally WHAT we need... after a couple of months of crap.

So will the clients be sharing the same server (sub divided resources, possibly by virtual machines)?

Maybe that's what you web people think.  At work, we gobble up such machines rather quickly. And that is nothing compared to the big players.

It really depends on what one is doing. Hosting simple websites does not use a lot of resources, even for reasonably large amounts of traffic. On the other hand streaming video is very resource intensive, to the point that Netflix uses entire 32 core 64 thread EPYC servers to serve video with TLS at the rate of 194Gbps per server.

[Ters]

The correct wording would be "16 cores 32 threads", at least from what I hear/read with tech news.

That is the terminology I've been hearing as well.

I'm a software guy, not a hardware guy. lol.

I'm a software guy as well. (Although I have done some simple CPU design at university.)

Also, it's a beast for my current level of clients - I have a handful, not dozens much less hundreds or thousands. lol

It's not just about the number of clients, but also the kind of clients.

[Isaac Eiland-Hall]

Well, my target client is a small business. WordPress is moderately intensive for such a user, but it's all relative. Either way, I can handle a lot on this server.