The Design of Software (CLOSED)

A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.

The "Design of Software" discussion group has been merged with the main Joel on Software discussion group.

The archives will remain online indefinitely.


I have been asked what server one should get if one intends to support 50000 + users with an webapplication written in (classic) asp, using xml and sql, with email.
I'm curious to know where I can turn to get the best info on this, or if anyone here has something like this already setup.
mikael bergkvist Send private email
Monday, February 20, 2006
Former COBOL Programmer Send private email
Monday, February 20, 2006
I think servers would be a better term.

50k + users?  Missions crital?  You want redundent everything?  Or is it an app that could handle some downtime?

Anyway for myself, non-redundent setup, I would get 1 Webserver, 1 SQL Server and 1 Domain Controller.

The webserver is the only thing on the web, and other 2 are off the web on local network only.

Since you are expecting high numbers, go with the most you can afford, You can scrimp on your DC, but the other 2 you want to load up.  Even if you are not using domain users for your app, I would still get the domain controller since it makes it alot easier for the web and sql server to talk to each other, if they are on the same domain.  I have done setups like this before and it works nicely.

If you want redundentcy, you need to double the hardware and then get something to switch between the 2 systems.  I don't know about that, so I'm not going to offer unknown advice on it.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Yeah, they have to be separate boxes, and you really want at least 2 webservers if you are supporting that many users. Think of the risk factors involved: Mr Hacker takes down your webserver. Does he also take down your database and mail servers? Do you have anything left after that? At least with separate boxes, you can reformat the webserver and be up and running in a couple hours. With failover web servers, you can turn off/repair the corrupted one and let the other(s) run while you fix the fubar.

There are some real sophisticated products out there that detect a corrupted webserver and then restart it with restored files.
Monday, February 20, 2006
1. How many of those 50k users do you expect to be online at any one time?
2. What are the financial costs if the system isn't available?
3. What are the expected response times?
4. How long to repair after failure?

I've seen systems where availability was in the four-to-five nines range -- you wouldn't believe how expensive it gets.  Think *millions* of dollars {pinkie in corner of mouth}.
example Send private email
Monday, February 20, 2006
If you need relisbility then get 4:
1. 2 redundant web servers
2. 2 redundant database servers

Try the dual opterons from supermicro for the database servers. Or you can go dual xeons with dell.

If your load is light then perhaps you can get by with two if downtime wasn't important.
son of parnas
Monday, February 20, 2006

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz