[Klug-general] one server or to have dedicated servers for each task?

[Goldfish]

2008/10/9 Colin McCarthy <binarysignal at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Etenil <etenil at etenilsrealm.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi girls and guys,
>>
>> I'd need an opinion about a problem I'm facing. I need to host our
>> company's email, website and shared directories (samba shares actually)
>> on the web. However, I wonder if it is best to have all on one server or
>> to have dedicated servers for each task?
>
> Hi  Guillaume
> I have created a new subject line for this as it's a separate topic.  I
> guess it would depend on the load these servers would get.  What sort of
> traffic are they going to get?
>
> Also if you put all your eggs in one server and it crashes you loose all
> your services.  Hope that translates into French ok :-)
>
> Colin

If it were me, I'd probably have a fileserver and an everything-else
server - mainly for security purposes.  If you wanted, you could still
store the web content on the fileserver so that it's easily accessible
for the users that require access.

If you wanted, you could even do some virtualise the email and web
services on seperate VMs, and get the same sort of security advantages
as having dedicated machines without the cost.

There's my 2p :)