Hello,

I am planning on relaunching a personal site with funds out of pocket, so this time I was hoping to serve up the content in a slightly different manner so as to curb some cost in the future, while still preserving the integrity of my site. See if this makes sense to you….

I was thinking of putting the performance-related parts (scripts, databases, layout/design files, etc.) on a small plan at a really reliable host. And for the rest of the site, consisting of a growing collection of static files that will take up the bulk of storage/transfer, I was thinking of using a cheaper high-volume host. In doing so, I would hope to ensure a stable processing environment for the core of the site but also alleviate the need to upgrade plans on my higher-end host, as the static media would be served from the cheaper host.

I DO realize the inherent risk of using a more oversold environment to push any content, as it may have a higher chance of being unreachable due to outages, etc. But at the same time, those static files hopefully won’t be as dependent upon extraneous server resources that aren’t needed in the first place…sort of a double edged sword in this instance, yes?

What do you guys think? Might I be able to actually get decent performance out of the GoDaddys or DreamHosts of the world if I am just using them to serve files? Have any of you tried a similar approach with any success to show for it?

Thanks a ton for any replies,
TripSo let me get this straight, you want to use one host as a “database server” per se, and the other for the static content? Interesting idea, but sounds like a major PITA.

It really depends on how much resources you plan on using (since bandwidth and disk space are completely arbitrary numbers).

It just seems like you’d be paying _more_ to go with two hosting companies when you could combine the costs and get a hosting plan with someone who has decent servers (hardware-wise) and uptime, e.g. someone who isn’t in the “cheap” or “budget” host category.

What _would_ you be spending if you went with two hosts though, like $20-50 maybe? I would just combine that and find someone who can offer you a killer server (again, hardware-wise) on a shared environment.

You should definitely be asking how many people are placed on a server, what their load averages are, and for some third-party uptime monitoring if it’s available. If they can’t provide them, it’s probably for a good reason (e.g. because the numbers aren’t good and not worth displaying).

Those are the important things. And don’t forget to read the TOS, server resources are more important than anything else and seem to be the most overlooked thing (and the most complained about when people give negative reviews).

Do you have any estimate on how much CPU you use at any given time, or your monthly bandwidth usage? That might help narrow things down.Trip,

Having your files on one server and databases on another is a good idea. This is a simple way to distribute the load for your website.

I’d actually recommend trying a less oversold host for your files or finding a host that can offer you both reliability and high quantities of storage and bandwidth.

Good luck,
SteveI did this once almost three years ago and didn’t like the result very much so I dropped it. Probably my db host’s server was full or something. It can be done and it’s not that difficult. If both of your file host and db host have fast connections then you probably won’t notice much. But when either one of them is slow, you can really see it.

I forgot how it was done exactly but on your db host, you set your db to allow external connection by entering the IP of your file host. In the connection script on your file host, instead of “localhost” you enter the IP of your db host and you’re done. I think that’s it. If anyone has more experience on this please correct me where I’m wrong.

If both of your host are relatively close to each other, say one at SoftLayer and the other at LayeredTech, I think you’ll be fine. Don’t do what I did. My db host located in New Jersey and my file host located at ThePlanet, Dallas Texas.

Keep us update if you decided to go with it.Yeah, that’s what you would do. For example:

Let’s say you signed up with a higher-end host for the server-intensive processes, e.g. for running a database “server”. And then you signed up with a budget host for your actual content, but let the other host handle all the hard stuff.

In your higher-end host’s control panel, you would setup MySQL to allow remote connections from the IP address of the budget host.

So instead of connecting to ‘localhost’ (from the budget host) you would actually have to specify the IP address of the high-end host so that your budget hosting account could access that data.Might as well get a cheap VPS or a decent reseller account. Same price range, but no shared host environment at all.All points well taken! Thanks for the input, guys. Now that I examine things and realize the price points that I will be dealing with, I really won’t be saving that much money initially and even into the near future, so I might as well start out with everyone in one account as I did before. After all, I’m only beginning to approach 1GB of storage and probably not much more than 7 to 10GB of transfer once I get things rolling, as my site is relatively high disk/low access right now.

I imagine you guys were thinking I was talking about much bigger numbers; I should have included those estimates to begin with, my apologies. Maybe an economical reseller package with someone like ResellerZoom or the like would do it.

I’ll definitely report back as to what approach I take and who I go with.

Thanks for the help,
TripNo problem, Trip

Usually I see people who has extremely huge db and/or site that they want to set up a cluster by separating the db and apache into its own server, and usually are done at the same datacenter for maximum connection and minimum latency between the servers. There aren’t many people with small sites who wanted to do you’re thinking (or what I did).

From management point of view, I think it’s easier for you to use one really good host with some sort of offsite backup rather than going with two host, one high end and one low end.Now that I’ve had more time to think about it, keeping it simple is probably the best approach. I will come back and report on who I chose. Thanks for the help!This only becomes viable if you wish to host static content at one host and dynamic content at one host. e.g. the main site at one place, but the downloads and such somewhere else.

But it is not a good idea to rely on remote MySQL connections as you will simply be making your site slower and less reliable. HTH,It looks like to me like the OP did not only want to put just the database(s) on another server, but all files pertaining to the site, except the really large ones (images, videos etc). This is not the first thread I read about a setup like this. It is exactly this kind of usage that could eventually determine all cheap hosting providers to add clauses that limit the way in which the account or disk space may be used, further closing the legitimacy gate of such hosting packages.

Given your restricted mid term needs, I think that’s the way to go too.

Article Source>> http://www.hotproductsreview.net/question-using-two-hosts-to-run-one-site.html