Web Server on VPS

[gequiros]

Is a good idea to have let's say: 5 VPS servers with vicidial latest doing WEB server

I want to be able to load balance in case one goes down the whole operation keeps UP

Current PING from VPS guys to my current Dialers / Database is:

1102 packets transmitted, 1100 received, 0% packet loss, time 1102452ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.613/41.567/74.814/4.008 ms


Would be a good idea ?

Thanks !!!

[frequency]

We are able to run 100 agents easily on a single web server, i'm not sure why 5 are needed in the first place. 40ms ping is fine. If the VPS nodes are not managed by you personally, other users maybe able to misuse or over use the server resources time to time causing you the issues. Please check %st on the vps and they would fluctuate a lot. A quad-core dedi server with 8 gigs ram would b sufficient for such server.

[williamconley]

Apache has artificial limitations on the number of running processes. If you raise these barriers, you can get MANY more users on a server (as mentioned, often you can get 100 agents on one server).

At that point, the limitation is entirely hardware-based (as it should be). But when you have Virtual servers, you lose much of the hardware to the virtualization technology, which is not improving the situation: It reduces total capacity.

Virtual is ONLY useful to allow servers that do not use the full limits so several other "not full use" servers may utilize that unused CPU/Memory. But Vicidial has no such "unused" in a multi-server scenario. In fact, the reason for multi-server is because individual servers exceed their hardware limitations.

Translation: Virtualized Vicidial Clusters are like trying to use a larger quantity of smaller boxes to carry bricks in automobiles. Stick to the pallet and forklift and Semi when you have a full load. Seriously.

[gequiros]

I was trying to have like 5 VPS on at least 3 different data centers, so in case of failure, i could have some redundancy

As well, i thought about using the Load Balancing from Cloudflare / Google / AWS, so i can be "prepared" for it

And have at least the dialers plugged in different Circuit Break or Data Center, i have to think and be prepared for the: JUST IN CASE

Call me crazy or paranoid, as you may know, i don't have experience, and i am asking too much just to get informed and better idea, as well, hopefully, someone as lost as i am, can get a bit of light from all those brilliant minds here...

And needless to say, thanks for your sincere and honest opinions, that will help me cut some issues and prepared better for when that particular day, arrives...

Hope you do understand why i am talking about the VPS

[williamconley]

I have no qualms about *why* you want to use VPS from an operational standpoint. What I'm saying from a technical standpoint is NO. Don't do it.

You can not have the DB server and other servers in different physical locations. Vicidial's DB connections are far too intense to deal with lag time. Thousands of DB requests per second intense. So ... all in one cloud, not spread among various clouds for redundancy.

You can not have the Dialers in VPS. Trust me. You don't want to fight that battle. Even at small loads the dialer will fail in VPS (not tiny, just small, like ... "trying to get a dozen calls or agents will cause instability" small).

You could have the DB in a VPS, but when you hit full load, you'll regret it and want to move the DB to a physical server. The power required to serve the DB for a cluster would require such a huge VPS that it'll cost more than a physical server and still have less capacity in the end.

If you want Cloud and Redundancy, be sure your servers are hardware-based. Most of these cloud systems will actually allow you to pull an entire server, and they'll image the HD and give you the full power of the CPU. But you'll end up renting those for more than you would in a Colo by the end of the monthly charges and perhaps negate the advantages of "cloud" as a result. Every time I've run the numbers, that's how it comes out in the end. Cloud is fine: But physical servers in the cloud, not virtual ones.

You've been warned: if you go Virtual, you're entering a war you can not win.

[gequiros]

Thanks so much...

Of course DB and dialers will be on a dedicated hardware, i was just thinking about WEB

Needless to say, i just gotta make sure, they will be UP and RUNNING

Datacenter people always play nice with me, over 30 servers there, gives me a bit of love and affection

Thanks Sr for the advice... guess no more guessing about WEB on VPS, and stick to bare metal

Thanks again !!!

[williamconley]

Web is the only server you can get away with running virtual (no perl scripts running, nothing intense). Just be sure they are in the same physical location sharing a direct-link on a 1G local network with the DB.

But each virtual web will be so inferior to a physical web that the plusses are hard to define. Two physical webs and you're fairly certain to have no issues. Three is overkill, but very likely resilient in case of a failure (you may not need to fix it for a while) unless you have more than 150-200 agents. Assuming your hardware is butt-kickin. But if you have 200 agents and use VPS for web ... you may need eight of them. lol

Nothing wrong with experimenting with VPS for the web servers. Just avoid it for dialers and db.

[gequiros]

Cool beans... thanks for the advise....