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

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I would like to create a high-available setup (e.g. a small cluster) for a webserver, i.e. it will run Apache, PHP and MySQL.

There will be between 2-8 small websites running with only very little traffic and workload. High availability is however very important.

I don't want to be dependent on 1 datacenter, so there must be a minimum of 2 servers placed in different datacenters, and if one server goes down, the user must experience no or only a minimum of downtime - and no data loss.

I have considered Amazon AWS using their Elastic Load Balancing, since it is possible to buy 2 EC2 instances in 2 availability zones and set up load balancing and RDS (Multi-AZ).

However this seems rather expensive. Using the AWS price calculator it totals to 185$/month the first year (including the free tier).

Are my calculations incorrect or is there a cheaper way to make this HA setup?

Best regards

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Dave M, Chopper3, Chris S Oct 3 '12 at 15:16

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.

If you can't justify $185/month for high-availability, your app doesn't need high-availability. – ceejayoz Oct 3 '12 at 14:59
Welcome to Server Fault! Shopping Questions are Off-Topic on any of the Stack Exchange sites. See Q&A is hard, lets go Shopping and the FAQ for more details. – Chris S Oct 3 '12 at 15:16
Hi. I see the problem! I will look into the rules and FAQ, so I don't make a similar mistake. Thank you – xyz Oct 3 '12 at 15:22
up vote 6 down vote accepted

sorry cheap and high-available aren't two words that have ever gone together. You get what you pay for and generally speaking a service like AWS is going to be the cheapest option you can get if you use a reserved instance.

share|improve this answer
Okay, that sounds reasonable. I guess this is the way to go then. Thanks for you answer. – xyz Oct 3 '12 at 15:09

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