We haven't seen an astronomical increase in performance with the quad
Pentium Pro Web server, so I'd rather have several less-powerful machines than
one all-powerful machine. In fact, because of recent performance problems, I
moved the Web forums off the main Web server onto a separate machine. The forums
server still accesses the same SQL Server, but I've distributed the Web server
processes for better performance. The best part is that the forums application
went from being sluggish and almost unusable to being a speed demon. Moving the
forums to their own server also increased performance on the main Web server.
By distributing various Web applications over different servers, I've
learned that I can better tune and troubleshoot the applications. If I had our
configuration to do over again, I would have each Web site running on a separate
single or dual Pentium Pro server instead of one quad Pentium Pro Web server.
Not very efficient or cost effective, but such a configuration would make
pinpointing problems easier because you don't have everything running on one
machine. Distributing sites and applications lets you find the squeaky wheel
when you have a problem. For the cost of the quad Pentium Pros, I could have
purchased and configured three dual Pentium Pro machines.
This configuration won't work for everybody, but at least you can get a
sense for some options you need to consider when selecting your hardware. Base
your selection on what you think your current needs are and what you think they
will be in 6 to 12 months.
The fact that so many IIS benchmarks are done on dual Pentium Pro machines,
and the fact that I don't think I am even touching my quad Pentium Pro machine
gave me a great idea for next month's column. I am going to do a series of
performance tests on different hardware configurations. I will be pitting a dual
Pentium Pro 200 against a quad Pentium Pro 200. At the time of this writing, I
haven't determined what set of tests I will use. Nonetheless, I plan to let you
know what you can expect with these different setups. The initial round of tests
will use IIS 3.0, and we will see whether IIS 4.0 makes it into the picture.
Personal preferences really come into play when you begin selecting the
software you use to deliver your information. Personally, I've gone from one Web
server application to another, then back to the first, and then back to the
other. We currently use IIS 3.0, and I'm anxiously awaiting IIS 4.0. As I
mentioned last month, I like the direction Microsoft is taking with this
product. And if the company continues to make the product available for free as
it has with the other versions of IIS, then the decision to use IIS is even
easier. But because this topic can quickly turn into a bias-for or bias-against
discussion, I will let you look at the different features and prices and come to
your own conclusion.
Planning
The best thing you can do for your Web site is to plan it out. You need to
decide which individuals are responsible for each part of your site. Changing
the character of a Web site is easy, but changing or redirecting people and
methods is not. You need to establish your Web site's goals, direction, and
responsibilities, keeping everyone involved in mind. This task is easier to do
now than it was even two years ago because people are more aware of what the Web
is and what it can do for them.
I hope this month's column has given you food for thought. Just remember
that buying the biggest, baddest machine around won't necessarily provide you
with the ultimate Web environment. Consider your needs and weigh the options.
Next month, I will show you how much of an advantage a multiprocessor machine
can give you in the Web arena.