Hey Mike - I totally hear you on that one! I built my last 3 workstations over the past - I don't know - maybe like 10 or 12 years. The last 2 workstations (don't remember much about the 1st - it was too long ago) - had failures. The last one I am now working on reviving it again. The HD on it went bad.
Where as - this DELL I still have it actually has TWO Chips (Not a Duo or such) - and they are each 300 Mhz (which might give you some idea of the Year of that PC) - it STILL Functions to this Day. I don't boot it much in the past 8 years or so. But, when I do - it still runs - to my amazement! Albeit slow. So - if I could afford it now - I'd go get myself a solid built DELL, or better yet - a BOXX. Because, it seems - built by a solid co. - it tends to run longer and better than what I have been able to throw together... -K- -----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Copeland Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server Thanks Kurt! RAID setups are great both for speed and data integrity, but they do have some drawbacks. They aren't cheap and I found that the heat that 5 drives put off has to be dealt with...meaning fans. Which brings me to my biggest worry with servers...hardware failure. More and more I'm liking the concept of cloud servers. Let someone else hassle with the hardware! Mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server From: Kurt Wendt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 6/18/2013 2:12 PM > I agree w/Ted! For me - powerful CPU is SUPER Useful - since I do 3D > graphics and now slicing of 3D files for rapid prototyping. But, for server > stuff - I always figured through put of data - like Fast HD's, and internet > connection is better bang for Buck. I never personally did RAID Arrays - > but, that's supposed be another big deal for Data Servers - which Ted didn't > touch on. And, I am in NO WAY an expert on HW (although - I personally built > my last 3 or 4 Workstations) - nor an expert on RAID (never implemented it > myself). I have just heard that if you do RAID (at least the one kind) - the > data can literally be pulled off TWO Drives at the SAME time - which should > give a Significant boost to data serving applications! > > And - yeah - always throw as much RAM at the system that you can... > > Happy Computing! > -K- > > -----Original Message----- > From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted > Roche > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server > > 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. > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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/16CC538FFA884520ADB010E8216BC06D@Programming2 ** 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.
