When I was active in Indyahozting, I was too much worried about server loads. Because it was something that affected all clients, and I hated it when servers crossed a total usage of 75%, which would make all sites on the server slow. There were not much of a problem on the Linux servers, but Windows servers always used to give me a hard time.

Right now, Im in a quest to make all my automated blogs work in full effecienty. I was hosting them on a shared hosting account, but now I have taken a dedicated server from iweb where all those blogs are hosted. And I am amusing myself in finding that the server is running at full effecienty, and that all the pho sites are always busy updating the blogs with articles round the clock, and serving the search engine visitors. The network lines are always busy, and the server’s processor is always at about 90%, and the memory usage is at 1.8 gb out of the 2 GB that it has got.

I dont believe in loading the hard disk though, since that would naturally slow down the server with lots of data. So I have dedicated one disk for the databases alone, and one for the files and logs and stuff. All of them are wordpress sites, and wordpress sites only work with databases a lot, so the 2nd hard drive for sure is getting a lot of work for itself. And a backup of the 2nd drive is constantly being taken in the first drive.

I am worried only about the databases since the php is the same for all the 85 sites that the server hosts, and they all use the very same wordpress templates. So if that is lost nothing is lost. If the databases are lost something is lost, and never is everything lost, since all the site sites that are hosted on the server are automated and get updated by themselves.

Technically you can host as many servers as you want on any server. It is just the matter of load that the server is able to withstand. A stupid old celeron server cannot handle 1000 dynamic sites while it will handle upto 2500 static sites with ease. When your requirement for processing increases, you naturally need to upgrade your server.

Certain datacentres support upgrade of motherboards and processors alone, and you can retain the same IP and the hard drives that you would have been using earlier, while other datacentres ask you to do a complete migration.

When your demand for load increases, it is advisable that you go for the best server that is available in the market, and put it as many processors as possible onto one server, stick in as many hard drives as possible, and use it. Linux can handle multile hard drives easily, while Windows control panels cannot. You will have to use Raid.

But when you have all sites on one server, which is a lot difficult to manage than having them on different servers, how do you manage the load? Even if one site overloads the database engine, all sites hosted on the servers could go down. So why not use multiple servers? Well, I ask, why not virtualize your monster server itself?

Get a VPS license for about 10 nodes, and virtualize your server, and split them into 10 induvidual servers, and allocate resources accordingly and split low resource consuming sites, dynamic sites and overloading sites seperately.

The cost of operation will naturally be a bit high, but compared to the quality of service that you provide to your clients, and the cost of maintaining individual servers seperately, this idea is a lot better. And, you have all under one roof, and the admin can access all files and folders with his root acess.

This is a good idea for all linux servers, while I cannot recommend it for windows. Infact, I dont recommend anything for Windows at all.

On Linux servers, you could set permissions to the various folders inside your web account. When your files and folders are on the web, it si accessable by everyone, and for certain secure folders, you might want to give it read only permissions, since you could allow people to read from the files, and not write to them.

Chmod is a permission with which you can do various combinations of permissions to a file or a folder on the server, ranging from 000 to 777

It appears that Linux and Mac are no harder than Windows, and that they too are prone to viruses. It is just that about 90% of the world’s PCs are run by windows, and that the hackers have no fun in hacking the remaining 10% of the PCs of the world.

The number of viruses in Linux are limited. And they too seem to be simple viruses, not any more complicated than the ones that are attacking windows. People these days use Linux since there are not many viruses that attack linux, and the viruses that are out there ready to fuck windows pcs will do no harm to linux.

Mac holds a very small percentage of the PCs in the world, and no one has to fear about it getting hacked as long as it doesnt become popular and take a bigger market share. Though about 80% of the servers are on Linux, there is nothing there for the virus writers to write about in there, as everything there would be web based programs, and what ever you do there would be called malware, and I have had a good number of malware attacks on the files that I have hosted on my linux servers as well as have had a 1 very big hacking incedint too on my linux servers.

The only good thing is that Linux and Mac are stable, and they dont get bugged easily or crash as often as windows. Open source people are just being noisy, and as long as the windows PC is not infected, and has got 2 or 3 virus scanners active at all times, you are safe. The only problem is that the speed of the system will go down by about 80%. So what? You still have got about 20%, get one more processor if required, and you can boast that you are running Windwos on a dual processor system.