Interesting. We've been working on Drupal development, and while the T2000 is great for user loads, the developers hate the T2000s. They want fast responses to their changes, and the T2000s just lag a bit on every change. Ideally we'd have amd64 for development then move to T2000 for production, but going cross-platform for that may be more trouble than it's worth. We're going to give amd64 a try and see if that's better. We don't have heavy load spikes on many of our sites, so the multi-user advantages of the T2000s are being wasted.
--Ted On 3/31/2011 6:56 AM, Chris Hoogendyk wrote: > Apples and Oranges. Use the appropriate server for the appropriate situation. > > The T2's (we have a few T5220's) are like semi trucks. They can move a large > number of packages over > distance efficiently. That is to say, they are multi-threaded multi-core with > on chip encryption to > support large numbers of ssl connections. However, the clock speed is lower, > so for a single process > that is not multi-threaded, they are slower. > > If you are dealing with cpu intensive applications that have issues with > threading, then choose > another server based on another chip. But, if you have efficiently > multi-threaded applications like > web2, use a T2 or T3 based server. > > With heavy usage of Drupal with Apache, MySQL and SSL, we have found that the > previous dips in > performance (when large classes all hit the servers at once) no longer occur. > The T5220 just hums > along. It's not quite as fast for some things, but it doesn't peak out the > way the other servers did. > > _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
