Hi
I don't see the logic, sorry. Your present server is already too slow for your peak loads. You ask whether a server of half the size would handle that same load - by "load balancing". Balancing with what? Do you mean _two_ servers, each half the size of the current server in a cluster? I would say No. The clustering comes at an overhead. Like the moodledata needs to be served through the network because it has to be the same for both servers, and it becomes slower than a locally connected drive. In addition, you need a third server, because the database also has to be common.
Before doing big changes pl. study the many very similar discussions here in the recent past.
I don't see the logic, sorry. Your present server is already too slow for your peak loads. You ask whether a server of half the size would handle that same load - by "load balancing". Balancing with what? Do you mean _two_ servers, each half the size of the current server in a cluster? I would say No. The clustering comes at an overhead. Like the moodledata needs to be served through the network because it has to be the same for both servers, and it becomes slower than a locally connected drive. In addition, you need a third server, because the database also has to be common.
Before doing big changes pl. study the many very similar discussions here in the recent past.