Which server is the best ? need UR advice

[yeros]

Hello

hello my current hoster is changing his location and just now he suggest me few servers for choice

1. AMD XP2400
ram: 512
HD 40GB
bandwidth: 2000GB
port: 100 mbit
with Directadmin

2. AMD Sempron 2400
1GbRAM
80Gb HDD
3000Gb transfer
10mbps network
Located in New Jersey, US

3. AMD Athlon 64 3400+
512MB RAM
120GB HDD
2 IP Addresses
10Mbit Bandwidth
3000Gb traffic

4. Intel Pentium 4 2.4ghz
1GB ram
120GB hard drive
500GB transfer
100mbit port
CentOS 5
1 IP

all of this servers have ~ the same price.

First of all, for what is this server. I run few scripts which grab rss feeds, analize and convert this information.

So , thats' why the most important for me is
a) RAM
b) Bandwidht
c) space
d) processor

The only think that i don't know, is there any big difference between 10Mbit and 100 mbit ? is it so important ?

That's why i don;t know , which one to choose?

Any advice will be appreciated

P.s. btw is

bandwidth: 2000GB
port: 100 mbit

is more than

10Mbit Bandwidth
3000Gb traffic

???

on another forum, it was told me, that first opt have more opt than the second one

[hostBrain]

I would lean towards #4.
More ram and the 100mbit, which is better than the 10mbit

[subhzash]

I prefer option #4 because good ram and more memory

[tamecrow]

The fourth looks good, as long as you're only hosting one site on it. If you want to spread more sites across the server, make sure you request unique IPs for each site (and test them for bad history).

[speed]

The fourth looks good, as long as you're only hosting one site on it. If you want to spread more sites across the server, make sure you request unique IPs for each site (and test them for bad history).

You do NOT need a unique IP per site that is just wasteful, the only reason you would need a unique IP is if your sites are using SSL certificates.

However with a single IP you will have issues hosting a DNS server on that server as DNS requires 2 IPs. Not that you're supposed to put both DNS servers on the same physical box.

From that list I'd go with #4, and to answer your question of 100Mbit v 10Mbit, 100Mbit will allow you to serve more data in the same time frame assuming CPU/Disk etc aren't overloaded.

[tamecrow]

You do NOT need a unique IP per site that is just wasteful, the only reason you would need a unique IP is if your sites are using SSL certificates.

Wrong - there's plenty of SEO reasons to use unique IPs. There have been instances where every site on a server has received a search engine penalty because of the actions of one or more of the sites which resided on it. Also, using unique IPs (as well as different WHOIS records and a number of additional measures) distances one site from another which is vital for people who cross-link their sites or build up faux-networks. There's a lot to be said for keeping away from shared servers.

[yeros]

Wrong - there's plenty of SEO reasons to use unique IPs. There have been instances where every site on a server has received a search engine penalty because of the actions of one or more of the sites which resided on it.

Yes, i read about it , but don't think that it's absolute. As because, it this case for spam/scam/black seo of of site on BIG brothers hosts (HostGator/Dreamhost) near the 1-10K site must be under penalty

regarding cross linking: different IP-s isn't enought, their dns-s, whois info must be defferent too (as i know)

[tamecrow]

regarding cross linking: different IP-s isn't enought, their dns-s, whois info must be defferent too (as i know)

Yep, I mentioned that in my original post too.

[wige]

Google engineers have said in conferences, blogs and in the Google Groups, that Google does not penalize shared IP addresses unless a significant portion of the domains on that IP address are seen as spammy. If you have a site on a shared host that has 50 sites on it, and two of those sites are blacklisted, Google will not penalize the remaining sites. Now if ten of the sites are blacklisted, you may run into problems.

As far as cross linking, as Yeros and Tamecrow mention above, the algorithm considers linking patterns, similar stylistic elements, and registration information above the IP address. It has even been hinted that the system that tries to identify link exchanges is not IP-aware, as it operates on an indexed cache of data and can only see the URL.

It is natural, for example, that a web design company would host a few web sites on a server they own. As long as Googlebot doesn't dislike that company's sites or SEO methods, there will be no penalty on any of the sites for sharing an IP. Now if all of those sites are interlinked - links from the designer's portfolio point to the various home pages, and a link in the footer points back to the designer's page, those links would be detected as reciprocal and the links would be devalued. If the sites were on different IPs, well a reciprocal link is still a reciprocal link, and the links would still be devalued. Bear in mind, there is no actual penalty to a web site for most reciprocal links. Google expects them to occur naturally. However, the links themselves are discounted to be of minimal benefit from an SEO perspective, because Google wants to make its ranking decisions based on neutral links, and they do not consider reciprocal links neutral.