Thanks, Ted.
The box I've been using has one of the upper-level Seagate drives...high
RPM, big cache, ridiculous MTBF #s...and 8GB of RAM. CentOS shows that
it is using like 1GB of memory after up-times of >1 year.
I was going to go with one of the Crucial Memory M4 drives...probably
the 480GB model. I have another client that is using a RAID 5 system I
built and after 5 years it's still purring like a clean kitten. But for
this installation I was going to use two identical boxes, each running
MariaDB Galera Cluster to achieve some security in case of drive/system
failure.
I had considered using a mainboard with two 1GB network ports...but to
be honest, I'm not sure I understand how that would work with IP
addressing since (I assume) each network device would have to have its
own IP address. Seems like if all requests arrive at IP 1, then why/when
would traffic ever route through IP 2? (exposing hole in knowledge here...)
Thanks again for your consultancy!
Mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server
From: Ted Roche <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 6/18/2013 2:02 PM
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Mike Copeland <[email protected]> wrote:
Any opinions, facts as to whether a Xeon CPU would SIGNIFICANTLY,
NOTICEABLY outperform an Intel Core i5 on a box that is a CentOS running
MariaDB dedicated data server? I'm sure the Xeon would run cooler, fewer
cycles, etc.
Requisite consultant answer: It depends.
There are pretty much three potential bottlenecks on a database server:
bandwidth going in and out of the box (if you're moving big batches of
data, or have slow internet speeds), speed of moving data on and off the
disks -- are you using a fast disk array? -- and processing power to turn
the packets into SQL into data requests into disk I/O. Something is always
the bottleneck, and if it keeps up with customer demand, there's no need to
worry about it.
I've been using a Core i5 in this configuration for a year or so and while
watching the % of "busy" on the server, it rarely exceeds 5% on any core,
any parameter.
So, you do have data! This doesn't sound like a computing-intensive
application, then. If the CPU isn't even breaking sweat under this
(similar, right?) load, there's no need to bring in more horsepower.
imnsho, of course.
Do you have memory usage data? IME, throwing more RAM at big data servers
is usually the least expensive, highest return investment. Remember,
retrieving data from RAM is THOUSANDS of times faster than reading it off
fast disk arrays.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
