3 ms·

I'm not sure why anyone, with the technology options available today, would choose a single monolithic server approach and scale that vertically. I think this

by bstar77 13y ago

I'm not sure why anyone, with the technology options available today, would choose a single monolithic server approach and scale that vertically. I think this is just poor design and probably not an MS stack issue. But could this be an MS community thing, where they generally prefer proven technical solutions from 2001?

twic 13y ago
Possibly because it's actually pretty cost-effective. You need at least two machines for availability. But you get more bang per buck by making those two machines bigger than by adding a third. Until you hit the limit of what you can do on commodity-ish x86 servers, and would need to start buying Gucci kit from Sunacle or IBM or whoever, at which point your CFO is going to start crying like a baby.
- bstar77 13y ago
  This may be cheaper up-front, but scales terribly which will increase costs exponentially whenever there is a need for growth. Additionally, like others have mentioned, a simple memory leak from one app will affect every other app on this box. Also, it doesn't sound like there's any redundancy. What happens when the HD blows up? If they fired these app up as separate VMs, they could at least scale each to what their needs are and only pay for what they are using. I manage an app architecture that consists of several Heroku apps along with a couple DBs at mongoHQ for under $100/month. Heroku definitely isn't the cheapest solution, but it allows me to scale horizontally and takes the massive load of sysadmin tasks off my back so I can focus on development.
KaiserPro 13y ago
Because the original poster shouldn't need more than one server to deal with 1 ticket a minute. (1500 tickets a day) you should be able to grow that by 1000% and still not break a sweat. In fact it should be able to cope with 1 a second. In reality most people are never going to deal with that level of scale.

by bstar77 13y ago

twic 13y ago

Possibly because it's actually pretty cost-effective. You need at least two machines for availability. But you get more bang per buck by making those two machines bigger than by adding a third. Until you hit the limit of what you can do on commodity-ish x86 servers, and would need to start buying Gucci kit from Sunacle or IBM or whoever, at which point your CFO is going to start crying like a baby.

bstar77 13y ago
This may be cheaper up-front, but scales terribly which will increase costs exponentially whenever there is a need for growth. Additionally, like others have mentioned, a simple memory leak from one app will affect every other app on this box. Also, it doesn't sound like there's any redundancy. What happens when the HD blows up? If they fired these app up as separate VMs, they could at least scale each to what their needs are and only pay for what they are using. I manage an app architecture that consists of several Heroku apps along with a couple DBs at mongoHQ for under $100/month. Heroku definitely isn't the cheapest solution, but it allows me to scale horizontally and takes the massive load of sysadmin tasks off my back so I can focus on development.

KaiserPro 13y ago

Because the original poster shouldn't need more than one server to deal with 1 ticket a minute. (1500 tickets a day) you should be able to grow that by 1000% and still not break a sweat. In fact it should be able to cope with 1 a second. In reality most people are never going to deal with that level of scale.