Our small startup company plan to deploy a web application on Glassfish, I and wonder if some of the experience user out there can answer me couple question. When I shopping for server, I usually look at RAM amount, as GF does required good amount of RAM to run, below are the two sites with significant price different for the same amount of RAM. I wonder why?? Godaddy: http://www.godaddy.com/hosting/virtual-dedicated-servers.aspx?ci=9013 Versus http://entic.net/Servers

Does below plan from Godaddy consider good to run GF application.

OS: Linux CentOS 
• RAM: 4 GB
• Storage: 60 GB
• Bandwidth: 2,000 GB/mo

Our web application is a social network, expected to have 2000-4000 users to start with

  • What's the budget? Those two options you gave above seem very differently priced. – Tom O'Connor Jan 3 '11 at 10:59

I've had a look at the GoDaddy website (which is against my personal policy (I really don't like them)), but you might find you'll get better performance, for not much more money from a true Dedicated Server.

I've found in the past that virtual servers lack the IO performance needed for high traffic sites. It's tricky, but you might need to have some idea of how much IO performance is required by your application. If you're presenting lots of images, which I bet you are, you'll want to be able to read them from disk as quickly as possible, and deliver them to the user fast too.

I think I'd probably go so far as to separate the media server to media.yourdomain.com, and set a different A record for that, to point at a secondary IP on your server, and point Varnish Cache at that, so the frequently requested static assets get served from memory, rather from disk.

Having re-read your question, I'd guess that the reason those two server are so different in price is because the GoDaddy one is a Virtual Dedicated server (which to me, sounds like a contradiction in terms, somewhat), and the other is a true dedicated server (and more the price you should be paying).

If you had a sysadmin on staff, I'd probably suggest that you buy a 1U server from Dell, and put it in Colo in a local datacenter. This can work out cheaper than renting a $500/month server, if you've got someone capable enough to manage it.

I'm also going to suggest that if your site is important, ie, makes you money, then you spend a little more in the outlay, and get 2 servers, and set up some kind of load balancing between them. This would give you a good chance to mitigate single hardware failures, and have a bit of resilliency when things go wrong (which they will, eventually).

I'd also make sure that whatever server you go for, especially a dedicated one, has a pair of hard disks in RAID1 configuration, so that you can cope with a single disk failure without your server going offline.

  • Thank you so much for a thorough answer? Is Varnish Cache help us cache static content better? Our budget is very small. It is about $80-100/month. So it seems like godaddy is a good choice for now. Do you know any other VPS provider that might be better than godaddy, since you said, you hate godaddy? – Harry Pham Jan 4 '11 at 2:18
  • Varnish will cache static content so that frequent requests for assets won't hit the backend server(s). It's also a good load balancer, should you want to add more backends. – Tom O'Connor Jan 4 '11 at 10:12
  • My distaste for godaddy comes from a number of times when they've been incompetant or unhelpful. As for an alternative VPS provider, I can't recommend Rackspace Cloud highly enough. – Tom O'Connor Jan 4 '11 at 10:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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