brown2005 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hi, If I was to have 2 seperate servers... 1 for the main website.. all the files etc.. 1 for pictures would this work faster than having all of it on one site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomfmason Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Hi, If I was to have 2 seperate servers... 1 for the main website.. all the files etc.. 1 for pictures would this work faster than having all of it on one site? Yes it would but imo that is not needed unless your site has a huge number of static files or has *a lot* of traffic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Little Guy Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 If one server crashed, you still would have the other... which would/could take over the crashed one's duties until the old one got fixed. Basically... if you have a HUGE site TONS of transfer TONS of connections more servers is better than one. - 1+ for database - 1+ for files - 1+ for storage - 1+ for any thing else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 No. The static server would only serve the static content, the db server would only have the db, etc... they would not take of each other's duties. You could make a solution where you would do that, but that is not what brown2005 is talking about as far as I can see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 in regards to daniel's post what I am talking about is just having a separate server for say images.. maybe javascript files. if i have a lot of them which i doubt.. so that it makes the server with the database and php files on work faster... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 As Tom said, if you have a lot of traffic then it can increase the speed. Some large sites do that, e.g. SitePoint has sitepoint.com and then sitepointstatic.com for their static content (images, js, css). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown2005 Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 thanks very much thats what i needed to know.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Little Guy Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I know what your saying... I was just expanding... and I know they wouldn't take over each others duties, but 1 db server could take over another db server or 1 image server could take over another image sever etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcombs_31 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I know what your saying... I was just expanding... and I know they wouldn't take over each others duties, but 1 db server could take over another db server or 1 image server could take over another image sever etc. You are wrong, you are thinking of some form of clustering or redundancy which is NOT what is being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.