1x 768 + IP + Backup or 2x 512, Thoughts?

If your backup strategy actually works, and if your services can be neatly divided into two smaller boxes, I think 2x512 would be better, as you will get 33% more resources for only $1 more. But it will take a bit of work and a lot of testing to set up a backup system with a similar level of reliability as Linode's paid option. (Always test your backups!)

I've also thought I should be able to move memcached, and mysql over there. At least for my main site.

I dont want the likes of php running, as it will defeat the object of splitting the services, but lighttpd or nginx, could be run as a low resource, static file server couldnt it?

One disadvantage to running two I have just thought of, is that in my scenario, I wont be using the extra bandwidth, whereas moving to a 768MB, I will get more bandwidth to use.

Also, I will have a restriction on how much disk space I can use, as I will need to be able to mirror the data on the second linode.

Whereas the 768MB will have more disk space, and via the backup service, be able to have I think 4 data backups. Something I couldnt do on the 2x 512 unless I only grow to about 4GB…..

I think I may have just answered my own question. :/

@alexp999:

One disadvantage to running two I have just thought of, is that in my scenario, I wont be using the extra bandwidth, whereas moving to a 768MB, I will get more bandwidth to use.

bandwidth is pooled between nodes

@glg:

@alexp999:

One disadvantage to running two I have just thought of, is that in my scenario, I wont be using the extra bandwidth, whereas moving to a 768MB, I will get more bandwidth to use.

bandwidth is pooled between nodes

Ah, thanks for that info.

Funny thing is, I have now gone back to a single 512. A typical noob mistake. I have only now understood how memory is reported in Linux and how you find out the actual used memory.

What happened before was that in "top" there was virtually nothing left. But I now understand that, that figure includes the cache shown in the swap line, I thought that was cache in the swap partition.

I found this out as even on a 768MB linode the free memory shown by top with exactly the same setup, reduced down to next to no memory.

At least I have some questions answered for next time, and Linode being the great system it is, allowed me to try one out and then go back within a few hours :D

@alexp999:

Whereas the 768MB will have more disk space, and via the backup service, be able to have I think 4 data backups. Something I couldnt do on the 2x 512 unless I only grow to about 4GB…..
You don't need to keep 4 complete copies of your data, unless 100% of your data changes every day. Tools like rsnapshot can keep a large number of daily, weekly, etc. backups while only maintaining one copy of a file that doesn't change between backups. Saves you a lot of disk space.

Another option would be to move your backups to something like Amazon S3. Then you only pay for the exact amount of space you use.

@alexp999:

Funny thing is, I have now gone back to a single 512.
Good for you if you can fit everything you need in a 512. Make sure you have a sound backup strategy.