Sign up ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've seen many answers to this question But not in the format I'm interested in. I'm developing an app that should upload data to a server. The app has users playing against each other with that data. Now the question is - if I divide the workload to multipile servers, then I'd have them worldwide and when player uses the app I'd choose the server closest to him. That will create a state in which all my data is divided to many servers. Now when a user plays the app, he'll need to obtain data related to him and to other users he's playin against. This data will be divided to several servers so the server should identify all the related servers it needs data from and obtain it.

So, isn't it more efficient to have 1 huge server that will contain all the data, and the user needs to work against it, or is it more efficient to let the servers communicate between them?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Zoredache, Sven, Ward, Iain Apr 30 '12 at 7:41

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Is this a one-person operation for the time being? – Joel E Salas Apr 30 '12 at 4:21
The question has very little to do with the hardware, and as always is almost purely tied to the design of the software. – Zoredache Apr 30 '12 at 6:26
Think about it: If you have a game that is really popular (as in World of Warcraft popular), no server in the world will be able to handle the whole system, so you need to come up with a software design that allows to use multiple servers in one way or another. How you do that is dependent entirely up to you and isn't a topic for Server Fault anyway. – Sven Apr 30 '12 at 7:05

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

It's not more efficient to have just one server, it's just easier to write a program for it that doesn't need to keep track of all that. You can do this if you don't need:

  • scaling
  • high availibilty
  • upgrading machines without down time
  • redundancy

As SvenW already stated, if you want to do it like a pro, use multiple servers.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.