# Server Hardware Donations Welcome!



## Dragoneer (Nov 13, 2006)

Along with the Ferrox update to the site, we are working towards a longer term goal of upgrading out server to support the community and bring back the glorious speed of past. All donations go towards hardware funding in the future. This is a separate donation account from the bandwidth and monthly operations donations (which is expensive enough on its own!). We also accept server-level hardware component donations as well!

At the moment, hardware specs are tentative. We need to build a versatile box that has ample amounts of RAM. So far, we've gathered roughly $900 towards disk storage upgrades, and will implementing a hardware upgrade on the storage end in December/January. Unfortunately, we also can't do that until get get a new server case (there are only 3.5 HD mount drives in our current case).

[size=large]*-- Click to Donate! --*[/size]

*Tentative specs:*
Single or Dual Xeon/Opteron (dual or quad core)
8GB of RAM (with expandability up to 16GB)
Minimum of 750GB storage space with RAID 10 speed/security

*Why not just upgrade the current server?*
The current server's motherboard (an NCCH-DL 875P Xeon Platform) is outmoded its upgrade ability is highly limited, and will not support upgrades beyond what we current have (except on the hardware end). The motherboard only supports 4GB of RAM and, while that's quite a bit, the CPUs aren't keeping up with the system.

I've been looking for replacement Nocona-class motherboards, and have found a few, and we can sink money into another 4GB of RAM and replace the motherboard as well. This would cost about $700, but would also limit our ability to upgrade in the future as well, and is not the best option (although it is doable).

Yes, better coding will help, but down the road, we will encounter the same limitations we are beginning to hit, and are trying to prepare a nestegg before that day comes (aka: not waiting to the last minute).

*Why don't you have solid specs listed yet?*
What is current and affordable now may not be the best bet down-the-road (or even the best performers for the money) when we are ready to upgrade the server. When we have a more solid spec sheet we'll announce it on this thread.

*Alternative Donations*
Diarmaidhuthence - $200 - Paypal
Cirrel - $500 - Paypal
Costilled - $250 - Paypal
Fox Amoore - $100 - Raised via charity commissions
The Fox - $40 - Paypal


----------



## Aquin (Nov 13, 2006)

*Tentative specs:*
Single or Dual Xeon Quad-core chip (based of the same tech used in the Core 2 Duo)
8GB of RAM
1TB storage space

http://www.visionman.com/Network-Attached-Storage-(NAS)/VCPRENAS4U.htm
Dragoneer - unless your building the thing, give this baby a look. Its got quite a bit more storage then your looking for, but its the only one i saw with 8GB of ram. You can customize it to.

I cant donate (no way to send the money), but at least i can help you guys shop for one.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

It's mostly a RAM issue, but we've got some other limitations with our hardware (and case) which need to be ironed out.


----------



## Fuzzypaws (Nov 14, 2006)

For the best fur art site by far, it's a good cause.  Especially if this gets us closer to filters that actually work.  *gives*


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Fuzzypaws said:
			
		

> For the best fur art site by far, it's a good cause.  Especially if this gets us closer to filters that actually work.  *gives*


We've brought in a few new coders (n3x1s and Icewolf). Kurst is joining us, too. Their entire focus is going to be on working on the new, faster system and ensuring that it gets done quickly and efficiently (and as bug free as we can get it).

I can donate about $500 towards the server, but as much as I love FA, I can't afford to bankrupt myself over it. =P


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Also, if artists want to, uhm, y'know... donate commissions to help fund the upgrade, I wouldn't say no. =) But I won't ask anybody to do that.


----------



## Mitch_DLG (Nov 14, 2006)

Now, I don't mean to be a regular raincloud of the depressing obvious, but, wasn't it said before when we were raising money for our current server that IT would be the end of all slowdowns and hardware problems?  I'm pretty sure it was, and that was, what, only just over a year ago?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Mitch_DLG said:
			
		

> Now, I don't mean to be a regular raincloud of the depressing obvious, but, wasn't it said before when we were raising money for our current server that IT would be the end of all slowdowns and hardware problems?  I'm pretty sure it was, and that was, what, only just over a year ago?


That was to buy our current server because, honestly, FA had no server at that point bu the test platform Gushi provided. The original motherboard has problems and needed to be replaced, and we replaced it. $300 -vs- $3,000 is a big difference.

If it were as simple as just upgrading the RAM right now I wouldn't ask for money, I'd just do it. Problem is we DO need RAM and it's holding us back quite a bit (along with some other problems).

The original server design was not one I put together myself, and it has a lot of performance limitations.


----------



## Fuzzypaws (Nov 14, 2006)

Mitch_DLG said:
			
		

> Now, I don't mean to be a regular raincloud of the depressing obvious, but, wasn't it said before when we were raising money for our current server that IT would be the end of all slowdowns and hardware problems?  I'm pretty sure it was, and that was, what, only just over a year ago?



Considering the stratospheric growth of the site, it's a miracle the server hasn't completely imploded already.  I'd say they did pretty well, regardless of how long ago (or how short ago, or whatever) it was.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Fuzzypaws said:
			
		

> Considering the stratospheric growth of the site, it's a miracle the server hasn't completely imploded already.  I'd say they did pretty well, regardless of how long ago (or how short ago, or whatever) it was.


Back when we bought the current server, we bought "what we could afford" and not so much "what we needed long term". A proper RAID controller, server case, expandability.

That's one of the biggest problems. Our server has lots of best of last-gen tech, and thus dropping in a better CPU is not possible, better RAM? Also not possible.


----------



## whitedingo (Nov 14, 2006)

Tell you what dragoneer make the dingo happy and finish that pic for me and I'll toss some money your way
blackmail!! no way


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> Tell you what dragoneer make the dingo happy and finish that pic for me and I'll toss some money your way
> blackmail!! no way


I just gotta paint yer background... that recent drama wore me out. Expect mail tomorrow. =)


----------



## whitedingo (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> whitedingo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I forgive ya ,you have more patience than me I would not tolerate that crap anyhow expect something the usual way think I've still got your email address somewhere


----------



## PunkTiger (Nov 14, 2006)

I just donated, but I feel a bit 'meh' over Amazon's system. Apparently, the max donation is $50. I guess it prevents people from over-spending, but I really would have liked to donate more. Ah well... I'll toss in another donation after a bit.


----------



## Fox Amoore (Nov 14, 2006)

Alright Dragoneer, I really like FA and the way you've ran it so far, so I want to chip in and do my part to help as at least appreciation. Problem is, i'm only using Paypal as a source of donation at the moment. Over the next couple of weeks before December I'm going to concentrate on two types of commissions, one type is the normal one people ask from me, the other is something cheaper but designed to raise money here for you're new server. The second type I'm referring to, is a simple $10 piano theme, which can either be a cover of a song someone likes (I can't charge for the copyright, but since i'm a liscenced pro, I CAN charge for my time, so that avenue is already covered), or it can be something original as a simple theme for a character, place or whatever.

If I'm able to take say 25 of these, that raises $250 for you, it's not enough but it's something. I'm more than willing to do this, since FA for me has been a good source of ideas and showcasing of my music, so it's time to give a little something back!

What do you think? And if other artists do this in the style of sketch commissions... we really could hit that target in no time at all. So in the next couple of weeks, before December hits, get in contact and have you're favourite song performed by me, or have an original piano melody for you're character (will take slightly longer due to CR'ing) and I'll guarantee all money goes towards the new FA hardware

If anyone is interested, send me a note of what you like, first come first serve, I'll try and do as many as I can, I'm a quick but careful worker and I'm certain I can play anything you throw at me! Have at it!

Best Wishes,

Fox Amoore
-x-


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

Fox Amoore said:
			
		

> Alright Dragoneer, I really like FA and the way you've ran it so far, so I want to chip in and do my part to help as at least appreciation. Problem is, i'm only using Paypal as a source of donation at the moment. Over the next couple of weeks before December I'm going to concentrate on two types of commissions, one type is the normal one people ask from me, the other is something cheaper but designed to raise money here for you're new server. The second type I'm referring to, is a simple $10 piano theme, which can either be a cover of a song someone likes (I can't charge for the copyright, but since i'm a liscenced pro, I CAN charge for my time, so that avenue is already covered), or it can be something original as a simple theme for a character, place or whatever.
> 
> If I'm able to take say 25 of these, that raises $250 for you, it's not enough but it's something. I'm more than willing to do this, since FA for me has been a good source of ideas and showcasing of my music, so it's time to give a little something back!
> 
> What do you think?


I'm all for that, and think that's a great idea. =) Plus it helps to get some good attention your way -- and I'll even pimp any auctions you put up for it!

^___^


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

PunkTiger said:
			
		

> I just donated, but I feel a bit 'meh' over Amazon's system. Apparently, the max donation is $50. I guess it prevents people from over-spending, but I really would have liked to donate more. Ah well... I'll toss in another donation after a bit.


I'm not the biggest fan of Amazon's system, either. I'd stick with Paypal because it's more versatile, but their TOS has that "instant bannination" towards adult sites. Somehow, FurNation gets away with selling adult items over Paypal... and I've not figured out how. As it is for now, Amazon provides the best option available without overhead or worry.

I can do private Paypal donations and note them in the donations log (which needs to be updated -- been busy).


----------



## Fox Amoore (Nov 14, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Fox Amoore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks dude! ^_^

It would be greatly appreciated if you could help advertise it, since I think it could be a gold mine, I can get this done and with the help of other artists who do the same, it really can be quickly and easily sorted out. I already have a couple of other artists interested in joining the idea.


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Nov 14, 2006)

Considering I'd only waste it on DVDs and games anyway, I could donate a decent amount to the cause. It's a small price to pay for the enjoyment I've been getting out of FA. Who do I talk to about donating through Paypal?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

diarmaidhuthence said:
			
		

> Considering I'd only waste it on DVDs and games anyway, I could donate a decent amount to the cause. It's a small price to pay for the enjoyment I've been getting out of FA. Who do I talk to about donating through Paypal?


I'll send you the information over a note in FA forums, and I'll make a note as to how much you donated in this thread (assuming you don't mind people knowing).


----------



## diarmaidhuthence (Nov 14, 2006)

You can tell people, that's fine, but...why? Is it for transparency of finances?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 14, 2006)

diarmaidhuthence said:
			
		

> You can tell people, that's fine, but...why? Is it for transparency of finances?


Yeah, I'm going to make all finances available soon(ish) for all to view. I feel people should know where their money is going.


----------



## PunkTiger (Nov 14, 2006)

While you're at it, Dragoneer, send me a note on donating thru PayPal as well. Once my paycheck rolls around on Friday, I'll see about beefing up my donation a bit.


----------



## kjorteo (Nov 14, 2006)

Will this really end speed issues _once and for all,_ as the Administrator note says?  As Mitch_DLG pointed out, this isn't the first time FA has had a new-hardware fundraiser.  If it's true that you bought high-end at the time, obsolete by today's standards equiment, what's to say that won't happen again?  Is the equipment you have your eye on now good for the long term?  If so, please explain.

Not that I expect such miracles, as I'm all too aware of how quickly computer parts become old.  The note _did_ say "once and for all," though, so I propose either backing that up with an explanation or changing it so as not to mislead.


----------



## Janglur (Nov 14, 2006)

Hey, I have a suggestion for a potential upgrade.

What is faster than your HDD?  RAM!
And what happens if you run out of RAM?  It swaps to HDD!

So far, the best board on the market for consumer level electronics maxes at quad dual cores and 64 GB of RAM.  Which is plenty enough for most frequent activities.

But, if you would like a cheaper alternative to 64 GB of RAM (That's like $3k!) might I suggest:
The Gigabyte iRAM.  It uses older, slower DDR SDRAM (up to 4GB) to emulate a harddrive over the SATA bus.  (It uses a PCI slot for power.)  I has a 72-hour backup and requires NO drivers whatsoever.
You could use one or several of these as a virtual memory drive or swapfile, and reduce disk thrashing, in addition to your current RAMDRIVE (assuming you're using one.)

For the record, some bench specs:
PC2-6400 (800 MHz*)=  6400 MB/s, 5ns access time.  16,125ns (16ms) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
PC3200 (400 MHz**) = 3200 MB/s, 4ns access time.  31,650ns (32ms) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
iRAM (Approx. 140 MB/s***) = 140 MB/s, 15ns access time.  715,785ns (715ms) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
Atlas 3.3k SCSI (Ultra320) = 80 MB/s+, 3300ns access time.  1,580,000ns (1.58 seconds) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
Raptor 10k = 68 MB/s+, 5200ns access time.  1,990,588ns (1.99 seconds) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
Standard 7200 = 61 MB/s+, 8900ns access time.  2,529,344ns (2.53 seconds) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
Standard 5400 = 50 MB/s+, 10800ns access time.  3,080,000ns (3.08 seconds) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.
Full T3 = 18.792 MB/s++, 500ns+ access time.  5,371,413ns (5.37 seconds) to load 100 pictures 1 MB each.


*  Assuming 5-5-5-15 or similar timings, for a read command.
**  Assuming 4-4-4-12 or similar timings, for a read command.
***  It's marketed at 150 MB/s, but SATA overhead limits it to around 140, unless you use RAID functions.
+  Based on sustained read averages.
++ Based on maximum theoretical maximum, minus overhead.



So, if your current server has a full T3 line (I have no idea what you're running now) and loading off of 10k drives, it's taking 7.36 seconds to send 100 pictures 1 MB each, full stroke.  (That's not even counting further computer overheads)  Going to an iRAM would let the files stored on it access at 6.08 seconds.  17% faster.
Storing the server's main functions, OS, etc. on this would make a fairly good impact, even once you do upgrade the server.  I'd estimate a good 5-6%.  It would give better priceerformance benefit than just adding more RAM, and lets you go past your actual RAM.  It is fully RAID compatible, and uses any DDR 200-400 without performance loss (it's limited by SATA, not the memory.)
For a 4GB iRAM, it would run ~$115 for the drive and ~$305 for the memory.  $420 total (going by newegg)
Also, using RAID0 would double it's load speed, giving an even further boost.

Plus, a newer iRAM is coming out soon that uses SATAII and supports 8 GB, doubling bandwidth and capacity.  It will also accept the much cheaper 2GB DDR2 sticks.  So around $650 for 8GB, much better value.


----------



## Kanga274 (Nov 14, 2006)

Here is a Link to some Terabyte Hard drive http://www.nextag.com/terabytes/search-html?nxtg=58c00a1c0503-92B1FFF11D64CCB0

And a link on Ram http://www.nextag.com/Ram/search-html


----------



## Janglur (Nov 14, 2006)

I wouldn't reccomend the terabyte drives, they're actually just either two 500GB or one 250GB drives in RAID0.  They have a much higher potential to fail, as the drives tend to be much lower end, non-server disks.

I reccomend buying individual 750GB HDDs.  Newegg has them quite cheap.


----------



## Cirrel (Nov 14, 2006)

You get my PM Dragoneer? Well, I just did the Amazon donation thing for $50 too. Heh. Mebbe I should read the initial post more thoroughly before assuming Pay Pal was the only way to go. However, is $50 really the 'Cap' on donations through Amazon? I read that someplace else in the thread. I can do more of the $50s I suppose, but it would be nice to get my donation to you in one lump sum.

Cirrel


----------



## Calorath (Nov 14, 2006)

Why RAID 10?


----------



## keeshah (Nov 14, 2006)

I have made my max $50.00 ..  donator #12   weeee! 

 This drive only needs 40 people to donate the $50.00 limit to meet the $2,000.00 goal.
 that should be easy to meet, yes?


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 14, 2006)

Calorath said:
			
		

> Why RAID 10?



IIRC, RAID-0 combines multiple physical drives into a single logical drive with the combined space of all the physical units, while RAID-1 mirrors data stored to one of its physical drives to the others.  RAID-10 combines the two.

For instance, say you have 4 physical drives with 100GB each in a RAID-10 setup.  They'll be combined into one 200GB logical drive, and a duplicate of that drive.

I may be wrong, though.


----------



## nrr (Nov 14, 2006)

keeshah said:
			
		

> This drive only needs 40 people to donate the $50.00 limit to meet the $2,000.00 goal.
> that should be easy to meet, yes?


4chan did it.  Why can't FA?


----------



## Calorath (Nov 14, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Calorath said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know how it works....

Why not RAID 5... if I was gonna spend that much money, I may as well sit it out for another grand or more and put this thing on a SCSI backplane running RAID 5. Especially if he's raising the money this quickly.


----------



## keeshah (Nov 14, 2006)

nrr said:
			
		

> keeshah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well we can't have a show us your tits for donations contest.. like 4chan
Whos going to admit to having furry/hairy boobs? let alone show them..
An female fursuits are just not modified that way...usually.. 


 BTW... is preyfar planning a vacation?


----------



## nrr (Nov 14, 2006)

Calorath said:
			
		

> Why not RAID 5... if I was gonna spend that much money, I may as well sit it out for another grand or more and put this thing on a SCSI backplane running RAID 5. Especially if he's raising the money this quickly.


Is it really still cost effective to be running extremely fast SCSI disks in an application like this when something like, oh, I dunno, lots of RAM and memcached would work probably a lot better?  I think, given the circumstances, having a lot of reasonably fast disk that's reasonably redundant would be a better trade-off than having not so much extremely fast disk that's reasonably redundant.

RAM is, after all, an order or two of magnitude faster than your disks, especially given the price-point for the really nice SCSI disks and host adapters...


----------



## chrysolithos (Nov 14, 2006)

Easy to join, and nice feedback on the few things I've uploaded. What's not to like? Oh yeah, teh slooonessing. So have some 50 on me.


----------



## Calorath (Nov 14, 2006)

nrr said:
			
		

> Calorath said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which of these do you think is more likely to happen?

Besides. If you want a server, build a server, stop dicking around with "PC's on 'roids computers"... build a server. And personally if it were *my* money I was donating... I'd rather see it spent wisely.


----------



## cesarin (Nov 14, 2006)

btw Dragoneer, I also read in the inquirer that AMD is gonna release soon some memory modules in PCI-Express format for servers

a 4x pci express DDr2 socket.


also, I would recommend a dual core AM2, since they will be easily to update to quad core BARCELONA witouth having to change the motherboard.

from woodcrest to clovertown they need YET another new motherboard change according to intel.


----------



## Devon (Nov 15, 2006)

diarmaidhuthence said:
			
		

> Considering I'd only waste it on DVDs and games anyway, I could donate a decent amount to the cause. It's a small price to pay for the enjoyment I've been getting out of FA. Who do I talk to about donating through Paypal?



Dragoneer I believe


----------



## Growly (Nov 15, 2006)

I'm hoping that my vixen partial on Furbid right now will sell... if it does, I'd be more'n happy to drop  you guys a few bucks.

Good luck you guys!


----------



## nrr (Nov 15, 2006)

Calorath said:
			
		

> Besides. If you want a server, build a server, stop dicking around with "PC's on 'roids computers"... build a server. And personally if it were *my* money I was donating... I'd rather see it spent wisely.


Aye, I totally agree here, but if I really wanted a server (cluster), I wouldn't be using PC hardware to begin with.  At all.  I would be using appropriate disks and appropriate memory on hardware that's a little more stable.

... and for this project, that means SATA disks in fileservers (without RAID, because of MogileFS) hooked up to really nice controllers and fast SCSI disks with *supar fat* interfaces in database servers hooked up to really nice host adapters.  All using fully buffered RAM.  All of this will probably be talking to chips seated in some vendor's real UNIX server offering, be they Opteron, POWER4+, UltraSPARC, or Itanium2 chips.

However, again, given the circumstances, the one machine they have has to serve as a catch-all for the whole mess, and it has to be reasonably affordable both in terms of initial cost and in terms of upkeep.  Your assignment is to guess which route would probably be best in terms of price-to-benefit.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 15, 2006)

nrr said:
			
		

> Aye, I totally agree here, but if I really wanted a server (cluster), I wouldn't be using PC hardware to begin with.  At all.  I would be using appropriate disks and appropriate memory on hardware that's a little more stable.


If we had the money, we would. And if there were any more power connections in the cabinet we're in at the colo, we're do multi-servers (one for db, one for file serving).

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work out that way and we're stuck trying to make the very best we can out of a single box. Theoretically, with the right amount of core-usage and RAID partitions, you could make a quasi-one box cluster -- xx cores doing everything off of raid array #1, xx cores doing everything off of raid array #2.

Yeah, it won't be *as good* as having two dedicated boxes, but given what we've got to work with, it'd be a step up.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 15, 2006)

Calorath said:
			
		

> Why not RAID 5... if I was gonna spend that much money, I may as well sit it out for another grand or more and put this thing on a SCSI backplane running RAID 5. Especially if he's raising the money this quickly.


Building a high performance SCSI Ultra 320 RAID 5 with 500+GB of free space is not an easy, or cheap, cost. SATA 3 is a better alternative to SCSI. The only time I'd consider SCSI is Ultra 320, and then the price factor comes in and bitchslaps you in the face for storage capacity.

RAID 50 using SATA drives would be a better alternative long term to a RAID 5 using ultra-pricey SCSI.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 15, 2006)

Cirrel said:
			
		

> However, is $50 really the 'Cap' on donations through Amazon?


Yeah, unfortunately, it's the limitation of Amazon that's hardcoded in. You can do $1 to $50, no more, no less. I've not found any alternative means to provide donations.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 15, 2006)

Janglur said:
			
		

> What is faster than your HDD?  RAM!
> And what happens if you run out of RAM?  It swaps to HDD!


And that's exactly why FA is having some rather nasty slowdowns during primetime!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 15, 2006)

Some reason I want to send you some drawstring stretchpants instead. I mean that's the visual I get to how you guys are solving the problem. -.-;;;


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 15, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Some reason I want to send you some drawstring stretchpants instead. I mean that's the visual I get to how you guys are solving the problem. -.-;;;


I wouldn't wear sweatpants out in public (because, y'know, I respect myself) but I will admit they're comfy as can be. =)


----------



## Kougar (Nov 15, 2006)

Calorath said:
			
		

> Why not RAID 5... if I was gonna spend that much money, I may as well sit it out for another grand or more and put this thing on a SCSI backplane running RAID 5. Especially if he's raising the money this quickly.



RAID 10 is often the primary choice for high-load databases, because the lack of parity to calculate gives it faster write speeds over RAID 5 or RAID 0+1, while still giving better redundancy. Also depending on the set of drives that fail, RAID 10 can sustain up to two drive failures without a data loss.


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Nov 15, 2006)

To Dragoneer:

Hey my friend.

I know of one website that sells servers with Dual Core Intel Xeon Processors.  The company is called ZT Group.

Here's the website:
ZT Group


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 15, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Cirrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aside: But it _is_ possible to send $50 as often as you wish. That works AOK and CC companies don't appear to automatically query the multiples as "unusual" traffic.


----------



## markwulfgar (Nov 16, 2006)

what happened to the idea of making a comic or something sellable for FA? I'm still up to help. Also, i'll talk to Rabbitvalley to see if they can help out somehow, may be we could eachother's back? XD


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 16, 2006)

markwulfgar said:
			
		

> what happened to the idea of making a comic or something sellable for FA? I'm still up to help. Also, i'll talk to Rabbitvalley to see if they can help out somehow, may be we could eachother's back? XD


The comic is on backburners due to the sheer amount of money it would take to launch it.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 16, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> markwulfgar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No PoDing solution for comics, these days? :?
Still a good idea, IMO.

Donating funds from auctions, commissions or anything else like that is still probably "easier", though. But we still don't have any "official" link buttons,  etc., for those either, IIRC? _*looks over to fundraising taskforce*_


----------



## Aquacoon (Nov 17, 2006)

Nyah you guys have one of the largest growning online anthro communities around. You should use it to your advantage!

I don't have money to donate right now. However I can draw. Couldn't it be possible to get a bunch of artsits draw pictures to amass into a portfolio, and then sell that or something? And everyone would just agree that the profits would all get donated to site and stuff? 

Or would that be just too much headache and cost to actualy make a good profit? ^^;; But I mean most of the artists here owe something ot the site, so most would probably agree to do a picture or two for free. Well techniquely free anyways. o.o just a thought.


----------



## kadath062 (Nov 17, 2006)

Donated. Not much, just $10, but it should help out. I'd like to see this site keep going :3


----------



## tysla (Nov 18, 2006)

*Hm? Ten dollars to eat a hamburger at the airport or ten dollars for continued furry happiness*??? The decision is pretty obvious to me, hope the collection goes well!


----------



## nrr (Nov 18, 2006)

tysla said:
			
		

> *Hm? Ten dollars to eat a hamburger at the airport or ten dollars for continued furry happiness*??? The decision is pretty obvious to me, hope the collection goes well!


I hope you chose the hamburger.  Material to sustain life is infinitely greater a need than continued furry happiness.


----------



## Janglur (Nov 18, 2006)

Noone responded to my suggestion for the iRAM..
I'm depressed.  Someone hold me!


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 18, 2006)

Janglur said:
			
		

> Noone responded to my suggestion for the iRAM..
> I'm depressed.  Someone hold me!



This one, d'you mean?



			
				Janglur said:
			
		

> Plus, a newer iRAM is coming out soon that uses SATAII and supports 8 GB, doubling bandwidth and capacity.  It will also accept the much cheaper 2GB DDR2 sticks.  So around $650 for 8GB, much better value.



_*hugs*_


----------



## Rave (Nov 18, 2006)

If the goal of $2000 listed on the Amazon donations page was met, would that cover and put aside the various "We would do that great solution, but that would cost too much money." talk we are hearing here, and we would get a real solution provided to the slow downs? Or is the $2000 a mere fraction of what would really be needed to solve the problem? The last thing anyone probably wants is to contribute to a hardware war chest of around $2K, only to hear later after our money is spent - "Well, we would have solved the problems once and for all, but we still didn't have quite enough money to buy a real server, RAID array etc..." 

I would have mixed feelings at best about contributing to another half-solution at this point after already having contributed to the last hardware drive only to see another spring up in seemingly no time.


----------



## lilglenndoggy (Nov 18, 2006)

Donated a bit. After the upcoming holidays ill be able to add a bit more. Just how many active members does FA have? Isnt there enough people on this site that if just a fraction of them donated a buck that'd get the job done?


----------



## Twile (Nov 18, 2006)

lilglenndoggy said:
			
		

> Donated a bit. After the upcoming holidays ill be able to add a bit more. Just how many active members does FA have? Isnt there enough people on this site that if just a fraction of them donated a buck that'd get the job done?



I'd donate but all I've got is Paypal right now. I have $58 in there and I'll donate it if I can find a trustworthy way! D:

P.S. Glennn you were in ma dreams two nights ago!


----------



## yak (Nov 18, 2006)

Rave, trust me - i'll make a good use of that hardware... 
Frankly, all we /currently/ need is another gig or two of RAM. But we can't add it, since the current mobo doesn't support  more then 4 Gig. So in addition to the memory, we need a mobo. A new motheboard will require a new CPU(s).
That's like a chain reaction here. We need one thing, but it turns out that inherently we need several.

So, with having to update a good half of the server, why not update it further? Currently, FA will not use the extra resourses to the max - but in the future it will..  We have extensive growth plans sketched out


----------



## lilglenndoggy (Nov 18, 2006)

Twile said:
			
		

> I'd donate but all I've got is Paypal right now. I have $58 in there and I'll donate it if I can find a trustworthy way! D:




actually the donations seem to be thru Amazon.com wich is alot more trustworth than Scam Pal :3

p.s.  i hope i was up to mischief ;3


----------



## squnq (Nov 18, 2006)

h


----------



## Cheator (Nov 18, 2006)

wow. I am shocked you guys could survive on that kind of hardware. Its nice and all but with the volume you guys have, thats crazy . I am glad you are upgrading, and hope you get plenty of donations. As a student I can't donate but bigfurs.com will see what they can do. 

good luck!


----------



## Cheator (Nov 18, 2006)

Sorry for the double post but a question: Can you keep the current setup and buy this new setup you want, and then use the current server to offload some? Like, perhaps, make it an SQL server, or content server? Would that help at all? Just wondering.


----------



## Rave (Nov 18, 2006)

yak said:
			
		

> Rave, trust me - i'll make a good use of that hardware...
> Frankly, all we /currently/ need is another gig or two of RAM. But we can't add it, since the current mobo doesn't supportÂ Â more then 4 Gig.



Well, it's good to know that the memory is the main thing. In that case, I will donate...a little anyway ($50), to do my share. I do hope that things improve in dramatic fashion after all is said and done though.


----------



## squnq (Nov 19, 2006)

Janglur said:
			
		

> Noone responded to my suggestion for the iRAM..
> I'm depressed.  Someone hold me!


I don't believe I'm actually responding to this, but.

1) It cannot be used in many 1U cases due to the DIMM heights and cooling constraints caused by the card's high profile.
2) It does not offer a lengthy battery redundancy or external DC power source. 10 hours (claimed) on battery is not sufficient if the server is located anywhere where it cannot be accessed physically by site staff in an emergency (ie. PSU failure, etc).
3) RAM cache/disk is unneeded if the machine has more of its own RAM, a proper server board will support 2GB+ DIMMs and have 6+ slots enabling the machine to have 8-12GB RAM, some of which can be turned into disk cache or swap space if needed.
4) Using RAM for swap in production is suicide because in the event of a power failure you will lose _everything_ and at best need to do a rollback, at worst need to restore from tape or reinstall. In addition, the I-RAM does not support ECC memory, which is very strongly not recommended in a production environment.
5) The $400ish that this device would cost would be better spent on additional memory for the mainboard, a better mainboard, or more SATA2 drives. The I/O and kernel overhead involved in paging from RAM to disk does not go away just because the disk latency drops, you are still swapping over a 1.5Gbps SATA link which will become thoroughly saturated and still cause high CPU usage and delays to occur, albeit less. By adding additional system RAM, the need to swap drops and you don't need disk cache or low-latency swap at all, because nothing is as low-latency as system RAM is.
6) This device is not geared towards production server environments and hasn't gone through the intensive burn-in testing that server equipment would. Failure rates will logically be higher than on a solution built for industrial use.


----------



## Janglur (Nov 19, 2006)

squnq said:
			
		

> Janglur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1)  Point.  I hadn't considered that the server would be pizzabox.
2)  That's fine.  It's not designed as permanent storage, only as a place to page swapfile to, or use as a scratch disk.  Any pertinant data can be backed up to a real drive.  (Plus, the server DOES have a UPS, I hope.  If not, then the entire server is useless in that same reguards.)
3)  But RAM isn't always sufficient.  Hence the current need for an upgrade.
4)  See above, as this is the same point as #2.  As for ECC:  Harddrives don't support ECC either.  They use those in production environments.  The iRAM's average recoverable failrate is 1/1000th that of a server-class Ultra320 drive.  It's unrecoverable failure rate is 1/7000th.  And it's average life expectancy is 20 years.  All, greatly surpassing the harddrive.  It is, for all intents and purposes, RAM.
5)  Completely and utterly false.  Swapping to/from memory uses a much much more significant load upon the CPU.  Go use Windows Ramdisk right now and make a 32MB partition in your RAM and test it in HDTach or SANDRA.  You'll see CPU use is high.  (For reference, on my system, a 10k RPM Raptor uses <0.1% CPU, the iRAM uses 1.7%, and the PC3200 uses 22.4% at their peaks)  Paging any large quantity of data across any CPU-dominated bridge is going to consume large quantities of CPU processing time.  Just because it's RAM in the motherboard, instead of RAM on an expansion card, doesn't change this whatsoever.  As for the latency issues:  Exactly.  Nothing is more low-latency as system RAM is.  Hence, why the iRAM uses RAM!
6)  Actually, it is.  Solid State Ramdisks have been in production for many years now.  The iRAM is just the cheapest domestic version.  A step up is the $1200 (without RAM) Hyperdrive III, which supports 12 GB of ECC memory DDR, but it connects via ATA100 (limiting the speed considerably) and has a strange 1.5ms access time which makes it actually pretty slow, overall, compared to a harddrive array.  The next step up is Samsung's OneNAND at $8000 for a 128 GB drive that operates at 100 MB/s read and 24 MB/s write, and has 2.2ms access time.  Still not comperable to harddrives.  And moving into the lowest end server drives, Samsung has a true Solid-State device which uses a 512 MB RAM buffer to save onto a 64 MB quick-Flash array.  It uses a custom fiberlink connection, or PCI-X, and can read/write at 1064 MB/s if only the RAM is engaged, or is limited to 18 MB/s read and 9 MB/s write without.  This enterprise server class device is $27,000!  And the best part is that the MTBF is lower than a desktop harddrive, as flash technology by it's nature doesn't last long.
RAM is the longest-lasting storage median in existance currently, even surpassing the revolutionary (and expensive) OneNAND technology.  The iRAM uses RAM.
(And for final kicks in the pants, it was tested for a straight year.  MTBF came out as 600,000 hours, compared to oneNAND whose MTBF is 150,000 write cycles [per cell], or 80,000 hours.
By that comparison, i'd say that the server solutions are INFERIOR to using RAM for quick drive swapping reliability!


Also, i'd like to point out just how silly your 'It doesn't have a backup!' argument is.
Let's say you add more RAM and max it out at 64-128 GB.  Okay, what happens when the power goes out to the RAM?  System RAM doesn't have a battery backup at all.  The iRAM does, even if it is limited.
If anything, your argument proved the IRAM superior.  =D

But we do agree on two things:
It may not fit.
It is inferior to actual system RAM.  But is a great solution for if you max out your RAM.  [Maxing a 128 GB server is a hell of a lot easier than you think.  A domain controller can do that at my company within an hour on peak hours.]


----------



## Janglur (Nov 19, 2006)

Also, a final note:

I've had it confirmed by abeta tester that the iRAM2 is going to use a mroe standard drive interface.  5.25" drive bay, 6-8 RAM slots supporting 2 GB each, using the cheaper DDR2, will support both ECC and non-ECC, uses SATA2/3.0gb, and uses a standard 4-pin molex, or SATA power connector.  No more PCI-slot needed.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 19, 2006)

Rave said:
			
		

> I would have mixed feelings at best about contributing to another half-solution at this point after already having contributed to the last hardware drive only to see another spring up in seemingly no time.



*nods*. Do know what you mean, having pushed a large chunk of cash towards the current server.
Am fairly sure that that will still be able to be used by our community in another capacity, but will leave that to the tech gurus. 

===



			
				lilglenndoggy said:
			
		

> Donated a bit. After the upcoming holidays ill be able to add a bit more. Just how many active members does FA have? Isnt there enough people on this site that if just a fraction of them donated a buck that'd get the job done?



Well into five digits on regular users, so yes that would work... _in theory..._
(Electronic transfer fees would tend to eat that, anyhow, so the easiest way would probably be to catch up with dollar sponsors at conventions, if that were permitted... *g*).

Thanks for the suggestion and donation for the community, Glenn. 

Major league thanks, also, to Diarmaidhuthence, Cirrel, Punk Tiger (perennial donor to furry causes), Fuzzypaws, whitedingo (if Dragoneer completed that pic at last ), chrysolithos, Fox Amoore (good luck ^^), Growly (ditto!), keeshah, kadath062, tysla and Rave for stated donations on this thread alone.
I know there are others, too, so apologies for any I forgot and give me a nudge if required! Difficult to remember which of y'all _don't_ wish any publicity. 
(Oh, and @ Cheator for asking around, of course... _*prr*_)

Regards,
David/u2k ^^


----------



## mwoof (Nov 19, 2006)

I have a more effective and much cheaper idea:

Kick out the hy00mans!!

Then they will stop coming here trying to satisfy their *non-furry* fetishes, such as porn, gore etc. and attract more trash!  The site will have much less load without them!


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 19, 2006)

mwoof said:
			
		

> I have a more effective and much cheaper idea:
> 
> Kick out the hy00mans!!
> 
> Then they will stop coming here trying to satisfy their *non-furry* fetishes, such as porn, gore etc. and attract more trash!ï¿½ï¿½The site will have much less load without them!



k....

Next, please.


----------



## dave hyena (Nov 19, 2006)

Y have donated a small amount, yet Y have rounded yt up from $10 to $12 to cover the amount whych amazon wyll cream off for ytself, ynorder that my donatyon may attayn a true sum of $10.

There ys somethyng one may wysh to bear yn mynd.


----------



## Matt_Lion (Nov 19, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> I know there are others, too, so apologies for any I forgot and give me a nudge if required!



Left you a note on AIM to say I've popped $50 in your collecting tin.. would love to give more, but I can't afford it until I get my income tax refund.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 19, 2006)

Matt_Lion said:
			
		

> Left you a note on AIM to say I've popped $50 in your collecting tin.. would love to give more, but I can't afford it until I get my income tax refund.



Thank you, leo: most generous. (I need to figure out where that note is now, though... _*mutters at AIM*_ :?)

Heh. Now I've got a mental image of the snowmew padding round with a tin tied to his tail... :3

=
Thanks be to you, too, DTDH/Dave 'yena. 'tis most graciously and humbly accepted, kind sir.
_(Apologies for stopping a few hundred years short. Time-travel mode is partly disabled tonight... ^^)_


----------



## ShadowKeeper (Nov 19, 2006)

Contributed my $50.  Definnitely worth it to keep FA going!  I can also do sysadmin && || coding if you have more work than you can handle.


----------



## Aquacoon (Nov 20, 2006)

Aquacoon said:
			
		

> Nyah you guys have one of the largest growning online anthro communities around. You should use it to your advantage!
> 
> I don't have money to donate right now. However I can draw. Couldn't it be possible to get a bunch of artsits draw pictures to amass into a portfolio, and then sell that or something? And everyone would just agree that the profits would all get donated to site and stuff?
> 
> Or would that be just too much headache and cost to actualy make a good profit? ^^;; But I mean most of the artists here owe something ot the site, so most would probably agree to do a picture or two for free. Well techniquely free anyways. o.o just a thought.



>_>.....<_<... ZOMG aquacoon is a genious and this is totaly not him saying this...


----------



## squnq (Nov 20, 2006)

Janglur said:
			
		

> 3)  But RAM isn't always sufficient.  Hence the current need for an upgrade.


Given their limited budget, more system RAM is more important than a low-latency pagefile is.


> 4)  See above, as this is the same point as #2.  As for ECC:  Harddrives don't support ECC either.  They use those in production environments.  The iRAM's average recoverable failrate is 1/1000th that of a server-class Ultra320 drive.  It's unrecoverable failure rate is 1/7000th.  And it's average life expectancy is 20 years.  All, greatly surpassing the harddrive.  It is, for all intents and purposes, RAM.


Hard drives don't need to support ECC because the medium is not prone to ESD interference the way RAM is, and many filesystems implement CRC checking, plus the drives being in RAID is essentially "ECC". Fail rates for disks are higher, yes, however a disk failure is compensated for via RAID, whereas a memory failure cannot be compensated for at all, you're guaranteed a system crash.


> 5)  Completely and utterly false.  Swapping to/from memory uses a much much more significant load upon the CPU.  Go use Windows Ramdisk right now and make a 32MB partition in your RAM and test it in HDTach or SANDRA.  You'll see CPU use is high.  (For reference, on my system, a 10k RPM Raptor uses <0.1% CPU, the iRAM uses 1.7%, and the PC3200 uses 22.4% at their peaks)  Paging any large quantity of data across any CPU-dominated bridge is going to consume large quantities of CPU processing time.  Just because it's RAM in the motherboard, instead of RAM on an expansion card, doesn't change this whatsoever.  As for the latency issues:  Exactly.  Nothing is more low-latency as system RAM is.  Hence, why the iRAM uses RAM!


Yes, but the way paging works is that when system RAM is full, the OS pages data from system RAM to disk in order to accomodate more data needing to be put in RAM. The point in buying more system RAM versus buying a RAM disk is to not need to page to disk at all. You already "ate" the higher CPU cost in transferring data to RAM when the data was transferred there to begin with, and that data MUST already be in RAM in order to be paged to disk. Certainly having more RAM AND a fast disk cache would be optimal, but in this instance if given a choice between more system RAM and said cache, more system RAM will give more performance per dollar.


> 6)  Actually, it is.  Solid State Ramdisks have been in production for many years now.


Yes, they have. Professional solid state disks are designed to be operated in heavy duty environments where there's a lot of vibration or dust that can destroy hard disks, usually military or factory applications. They're built with heavy ESD shielding, 40-bit ECC, regular direct to-disk backups of cached data, etc. I'd know, I have one sitting on my shelf. The i-RAM is not built to those specifications, it's built for price. Granted this server is not being put through the stress that those devices would be put through, but regardless this device is not designed for such environments, it's designed for and sold at a price point for enthusiasts and workstations. The same way the NCCH-DL motherboard installed in the server right now was designed for enthusiasts because "lol u can overclock dual xeons on it", and look where that's got them now.


> Also, i'd like to point out just how silly your 'It doesn't have a backup!' argument is.
> Let's say you add more RAM and max it out at 64-128 GB.  Okay, what happens when the power goes out to the RAM?  System RAM doesn't have a battery backup at all.  The iRAM does, even if it is limited.


The server should be on a UPS, so if power goes out the server will continue to operate, and if it's properly set up the server will flush and do a proper shutdown if the UPS battery gets low (though I'm pretty sure it's not set up that way, *cough*). The issue I was considering was that the I-RAM does not have a facility to flush data to disk if its battery gets low, and also in the event that the server experiences a power supply failure or other catastrophic failure, it's most likely going to be completely hosed and need a rollback regardless of wheither the I-RAM is installed or not; the server as it stands does not have redundant power supplies installed that I'm aware of, leaving one critical fail point which can destroy the entire thing.


> It is inferior to actual system RAM.  But is a great solution for if you max out your RAM.  [Maxing a 128 GB server is a hell of a lot easier than you think.  A domain controller can do that at my company within an hour on peak hours.]


I sincerely doubt FurAffinity will ever need 128GB of RAM. A new codebase should keep it from maxing out the 4GB it has now, even. It gets a lot of traffic but simple PHP stuff shouldn't chew through the amounts of RAM it's using right now, the code's in need of a rewrite.

My general point is that the money's better spent on more pressing needs such as more/better system RAM, redundant power supplies, or "a real server" and not a patched-together whitebox desktop PC in a rackmount case like they have now. Though a new version using DDR2 memory which fits in a 5.25" bay would certainly be something I would personally buy for my home workstation.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 20, 2006)

squnq said:
			
		

> I sincerely doubt FurAffinity will ever need 128GB of RAM. A new codebase should keep it from maxing out the 4GB it has now, even. It gets a lot of traffic but simple PHP stuff shouldn't chew through the amounts of RAM it's using right now, the code's in need of a rewrite.



The 4Gb is pretty much split 2:1 between Apache and MySQL at present in a balancing act. Hence Apache's being given the elbow, per the latest site status update.
It's certainly not just the code.

128Gb would be pretty wild at present, but hopefully freeing up around a gig should give us the elbow room we need to tide things over.
Any extra memory beyond that = a new mobo for a start...


----------



## keeshah (Nov 21, 2006)

The 4Gb is pretty much split 2:1 between Apache and MySQL at present in a balancing act. Hence Apache's being given the elbow, per the latest site status update.
It's certainly not just the code.

128Gb would be pretty wild at present, but hopefully freeing up around a gig should give us the elbow room we need to tide things over.
Any extra memory beyond that = a new mobo for a start...
[/quote] 

How much would a motherboard/system that supports 128GB's of ram, cost?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 21, 2006)

squnq said:
			
		

> Janglur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct. That's why it's my goal to make the new server a DB killer with ample amounts of RAM and serious effin' hard drives running the show. The older server will be retrofit and likewise upgraded to be a file server and do nothing but dish out files, which needs little RAM wise.


----------



## Janglur (Nov 21, 2006)

squnq said:
			
		

> Janglur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




- The iRAM's biggest limitation now is that it is being marketted to enthusiasts instead of low-level entry servers.Â Â It's not a very good option for a gamer, really, because it requires you to know what the hell you're doing.Â Â Once it does, tho, you quickly appreciate it's speed.
It's perfect for storing frequently-accessed files from the HDDs onto, to free up system RAM for more important tasks.
4 GB of cache is not bad.
Nothing will replace the need for RAM.Â Â But the iRAM can be utilized to massively reduce disk thrashing, thus lengthining the server's lifetime (this is what I do currently), and used for swapfile for when the server's RAM /does/ fill up, as it can do again.
Plus, at $500/4GB, it's not a bad deal as a cheap 'RAM L2'.Â Â 2 and 4 GB sticks are quite expensive, afterall.Â Â And the issue here seems more of a need for RAM than a need for /fast/ RAM.Â Â Just needs to be faster than the abysmal HDD tech.


NOTE:  due to excessive quoting, my points above are noted with - in front.


----------



## Janglur (Nov 21, 2006)

keeshah said:
			
		

> The 4Gb is pretty much split 2:1 between Apache and MySQL at present in a balancing act. Hence Apache's being given the elbow, per the latest site status update.
> It's certainly not just the code.
> 
> 128Gb would be pretty wild at present, but hopefully freeing up around a gig should give us the elbow room we need to tide things over.
> Any extra memory beyond that = a new mobo for a start...


 
How much would a motherboard/system that supports 128GB's of ram, cost?
[/quote]



Commercial class, I beleive 64 GB is the upper limit.  Example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813151008
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813182076
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813182089

As for mainframe grade for major corporations, the largest i've seen using normalized platform is Tyan's 8-way dual-core capable opteron (16 cores total) which tops at three models with 64, 128, and 256 GB of PC2-3200.
When you start getting into more custom environments, NEC can offer a 2048 GB (2 TB) memory array for specific applications.
And Sun can support up to 32 GB per processor, and 4 processor per pizza, and interlink up to 16 pizza's per master (15+1 controller), for a theoretical max of 1,048,576 MB per supercluster (~1 TB) across the entire cluster.

And finally, the Earth Simulator in Japan has 10 TB of memory.  (It's a supercomputer built to study the /entire world/ at once, to calculate weather patterns.  It's nearing the stages of usefully predicting weather!)


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 21, 2006)

Janglur said:
			
		

> keeshah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813182081

This is the motherboard I use in my personal server, and it's one I'd use for FA again given budget costs more than likely. It supports 32MB of RAM, has 8 banks and is really pretty wonderful.

I'm actually looking at a Dell or HP server. While I hate their home PCs, their servers are pretty damn reliable.


----------



## nrr (Nov 21, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> It supports 32MB of RAM, has 8 banks and is really pretty wonderful.


Aren't you about a decade and a half behind, mister? 



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> I'm actually looking at a Dell or HP server. While I hate their home PCs, their servers are pretty damn reliable.


I agree with this comment.  HP especially; I had some post-DEC Alpha equipment from them at one point, and as far as I know, it still runs to this day without any worries.  They still provide support for an obscure OS that's several decades old, so they're kind of in this for the long haul.


----------



## nrr (Nov 21, 2006)

keeshah said:
			
		

> How much would a motherboard/system that supports 128GB's of ram, cost?


Realistically, once you get past the 16GB (or is it 32GB now?) threshold as far as installed RAM in one machine goes, the price point for hardware starts jumping up dramatically.  At that point, it's generally wiser to start building a cluster to facilitate some distribution of RAM across several machines.

Despite the fact that typical network links between nodes in some of the lower-end clusters are an order of magnitude slower (cf. 2GB/s RAM-CPU bandwidth on a lone dual Opteron 240 node with 2GB RAM vs 150MB/s over fiber between nodes), if you can bog the CPU down on a node while fetching information from an in-memory cache in an effort to compress or otherwise condense your data into something smaller, the effect is minimal.

Regardless, doing this is a lot better than swapping to disk because disk generally has a realistic seek time of something close to 20ms under load.  So, while you're probably pushing 100MB/s across your disks with an occasional seek, once you start doing random seeks across the platters, you start bogging down the disk with queued requests for data.  RAM is near instantaneous because it's solid-state; instead of thrashing disk heads _and_ electrons around, you're thrashing only electrons around.

OK, so, price.  This is an exercise for you given this information.  Build a small cluster of dual-core or dual-proc (or dual-core dual-proc) nodes with 16GB RAM each and mid-range clock (say, hmm, 2GHz or something).  Include gigabit ethernet as part of this; the interconnect between nodes will matter to some extent.  Don't include disk or any of the ancillary components.  Tell us about your findings.


----------



## Kougar (Nov 22, 2006)

I see what you mean, but only after playing around a bit on NewEgg. It is indeed 32gb now, Supermicro offers mainboards with 16 RAM slots, that accept 64gb max. $284 for a 2gb FB-DIMM isn't to bad though, considering what recently happened with DDR2 memory prices... 

And Dragoneer, before you buy one of their servers make sure the price at least comes close to what I built this time around in your new server thread.


----------



## Wasted (Nov 22, 2006)

Just piping in for a bit...

Have you guys considered going the Google route? Google mastered the art of parallel computing my investing in large numbers of lower-end systems, then adding fault-tolerance and increasted capacity by adding more and more separate computers. (And I'm sure you already know all of this).

Basically my point boils down to this: Investing in another super-huge server is a very expensive and risky proposition. And it still doesn't solve any single-point-of-failure problems.

Another problem is future upgradeability. You seem to have boxed yourself into a chain-reaction type of upgrade by having only a single server. This is a pain I know all too well, for just this summer I wound up putting $1200 into my home server in a chain-reaction sort of catastrophe. By designing FA as a parallel-computing system, future upgrades can be performed by adding cheap low-end systems instead of paying gargantuan sums of money for a whole new server. Furthermore, you wouldn't have to rebuild the existing FA server, you could just add a comparable system, then run both the new one and the old one in parallel.

Also, someone mentioned that you were thinking of using RAID-1+0 for the new server. Why not RAID-5? Write performance should be higher, and you'll get more GB/$. Of course, Read performance is where it counts for a webserver, but that should be the same for RAID-1+0 and 5.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 22, 2006)

Wasted said:
			
		

> Just piping in for a bit...
> 
> Have you guys considered going the Google route?


We have, but we really only have limited rackspace and within that rack, even more limited options for power. We can't add too much more without the cab overflowing.


----------



## Kougar (Nov 22, 2006)

It was already mentioned previously, RAID 10 is often the primary choice for high-load databases, because the lack of parity to calculate gives it much faster write speeds over RAID 5 arrays. Short random writes to a RAID-5 are VERY slow from what I've read, RAID 5 does better if the data being written is sequential in nature, but that obviously is not the kind of workload FA deals with.


----------



## Cheator (Nov 23, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> (Oh, and @ Cheator for asking around, of course... _*prr*_)



o.o; ok...

I just hope you guys get some nice gear from this


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 23, 2006)

Cheator said:
			
		

> o.o; ok...
> 
> I just hope you guys get some nice gear from this



_*hugs*_. 'tis all for the community, anyhow, so that's a benefit to all. 
Will definitely be trying to ensure that those monies are spent wisely, in that context.


----------



## mewrei (Nov 23, 2006)

Instead of jamming out a server with memory so you can more effectively used memcached(or whatever) you might want to try something like a Sun Fire T1000 with Serial Attached SCSI(SAS) drives in a RAID-5 or even a RAID 0+1 array.

Sun Fire T1000 featuring Coolthreads ultraSPARC T1

You also might want to check out Oracle instead of MySQL.  MySQL is an amazing DB system but it's not specifically made for enterprise applications like Oracle is.

However if you want to stick with in memory applications, try X10 or BerkeleyDB.  They require a sufficient bit of programming knowledge but you can't get really get any better than those two.  Google, Valve, and a bunch of other companies use BerkeleyDB for their applications.

X10
BerkeleyDB

Plus, you can always model on Google's example.  The idea is not to get one massively powerful server but many decently powerful PCs.  Google has servers in its datacluster that are running Pentium 2's with little more than 128MB of Ram.  It'll make it more expensive for server storage but you might also want to look at colocating only the DNS while say having two admins keep two servers on two lines(such as DSL).


----------



## nrr (Nov 23, 2006)

mewrei said:
			
		

> [...]


I have comments to this, but I'm really too lazy to type them all out right now.  Mind that this isn't meant to be especially mean. 

In short, it's seeming that everyone knows the answer to this problem even despite the fact that they can't be asked to read other threads or the full length of this thread before diving in with a response.

Nice waste of everyone's time there.


----------



## FuzzWolf (Nov 24, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh there's at least one furry company that offers print on demand comics.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 24, 2006)

FuzzWolf said:
			
		

> Oh there's at least one furry company that offers print on demand comics.



_*listens*_. And.... 

Could you please also pop that name/details over to Dragoneer for reference.
Should be a lot more cost-manageable than traditional publication methods without any particular quality shift, I suspect? (I could answer both matters for print books, but comic book publication is outwith my particular knowledge...).

Thanks, Fuzzwolf.

d.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 25, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Could you please also pop that name/details over to Dragoneer for reference.


I already have some quality, professional companies lined up out of Canada. It's just a matter of gathering the funding together. Print runs are expensive.


----------



## FuzzWolf (Nov 25, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> FuzzWolf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Heh, don't thank me yet.  I was referring to FurNation, of which I'm a respresentive.  We can do print-on-demand and can be pretty flexible, especially for a furry cause.  However, Dragoneer's done a pretty good job of bashing FurNation on here, LiveJournal, goodness knows where else so I doubt he's at all interested in asking for our help.  I had previously offered when he was looking for a comic company to partner up with, but I didn't know about all the bad blood at the time.

Fuzzy


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 25, 2006)

FuzzWolf said:
			
		

> Heh, don't thank me yet.  I was referring to FurNation, of which I'm a respresentive.  We can do print-on-demand and can be pretty flexible, especially for a furry cause.  However, Dragoneer's done a pretty good job of bashing FurNation on here, LiveJournal, goodness knows where else so I doubt he's at all interested in asking for our help.  I had previously offered when he was looking for a comic company to partner up with, but I didn't know about all the bad blood at the time.
> 
> Fuzzy



k. Neither did I.

Not my business whether or not that's the case, but thanks for mentioning your PoD set-up, nonetheless.

Best wishes,
David.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 25, 2006)

I'll have a rather nice announcement regarding server donations on the 30th.


----------



## ferretsage (Nov 28, 2006)

I'd just like to smartly point out that as soon as one of you site admins placed the "There are still a few days left to donate for FA's new database server!" Administrator's notice at the top of every page on FA, your donation drive's goal attained climbed from something like 40% to 90% in, like, 48 hours.

This proves my long-standing advice to various art-archives that the way to hold donation drives successfully, and loosen people's purse strings, is to give them a constant ever-present reminder. Now, if you only included something to the effect of, "We have reached X% of our goal." inside that admin notice and updated it once in a while, people would scramble to push it to 100%.

I donated $15, btw. $5 for server, $10 for bandwidth. Not much, but I'm broke as crap. In other words, everybody donate something please.


----------



## CHW (Jul 7, 2008)

I'd donate a few bucks if there were a way to do it anonymously.


----------



## Steel Froggy (Jul 7, 2008)

CHW said:


> I'd donate a few bucks if there were a way to do it anonymously.



Why anonymously might I ask?


----------



## karoug (Jul 7, 2008)

Zombies! Braaaaaiinnns! It's Alive!

(this was from 2006)


----------



## Fuzzypaws (Jul 7, 2008)

CHW said:


> I'd donate a few bucks if there were a way to do it anonymously.



Donating through Amazon is anonymous by default.  After you donate, there is a link you can click to reveal your name and donation amount but it is entirely optional.


----------

