Which CPU combo faster for Server Duties?

[frangus]

I'm currently running a dual P3 550mhz w/ 768mb PC133 ram as my main file-server/web-server/ftp-server. Would upgrading to a Celeron 2.0 ghz w/ 512mb PC2100 ram be beneficial to overall performance?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'd stick with the dually myself and extra ram even though it's slower, but bump for someone who has first hand knowledge of the actual performance difference each will provide in a server enviroment.

 

[frangus]

Bump! I need to make a decision on which to keep soon!! So any help is appreciated!!!

 

[Thor86]

Are you noticing a slow-down or increase in traffic to your current server? The higher memery bandwidth with the pc2100 ram over pc133 would be the most beneficial, and perhaps even cheaper than buying more pc133 ram - which is somewhat a rare commodity these days.

 

[stinger73]

Depending on the OS, it may make a difference. But in terms of processing power the C2.0A will lag because server based Stuff uses the cache for threading the apps. The C2.0A will slow down a lot due to only 128k. If your are on W2K, spread your page file across HDD, and dont use more than 768MB for the size of it. That should alleviate some bottlenecks.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

as these people have stated, the celerons were not made to be put in servers. the 128k just kills the performance. however the benefit of the DDR makes them about even I'd say in overall performance. servers love duallies.

 

[jose]

Things to consider:

Are your apps multi-procossor aware ? For instance alot of database (enterprise) systems don't benefit from dual procs.

Is your system cpu bound, i/o bound, or a mix of both ? ie. are you doing complex calculations or just serving up files ?

How is you i/o sub system configured ? Do you have a raid system ? This will impact you if your system is i/o bound.

If your system is cpu bound, then how much memory do your apps need before accessing the swap partition ?

Also the choice of operating system will also greatly impact you. Which are you using BSD , AIX, Linux , Unix

Regards,
Jose

 

[frangus]

The current server is a Dual P3 550e w/ 768mb PC133 ram, it's serving up 3 partitions:
1: 20gb -boot/OS;
2: 2x WD 120GB 8mb cache in RAID 1 config for all my files.

This server is running Win2k Server. It's main purpose is to host files for internal network use [ie. our home] so our shared files are in a central location. There is no database crunching, no SETI/Folding [not on this machine] just basic file sharing. We also run a small WWW server and occasional FTP serving in case files needed to be transfered out. That's about it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Should I keep this setup or go with a newer Celeron 2.0G + 845G + DDR ram setup?

 

[brinstar117]

The dual P3 will be more than adequate for your tasks.

 

[frangus]

would it be worth upgrading. I'm getting the Celeron system I mentioned for free.

 

[mechBgon]

At work I have a single-P3 933 server running Exchange for 75 users, hosting four laser printers, fileserving the users' folders for those 75 people, and acting as Primary Domain Controller. Its processor usage is usually around 5%. Check your CPU usage there, make sure you have enough RAM to suit the need, and don't fix what's not broken, that's my suggestion

 

[jose]

I'd say it's not worth upgrading.

You will see the greatest benefit by upgrading your i/o subsystem. ie hardware raid 5 , you can get a 3Ware 4 ide cntrl.
and 2 more WD 120 drives. The hardware raid will make the greatest difference.

But if it's free then why not, but I would not put a celeron in any server.

Regards,
Jose

 

[frangus]

Ok new scenario. Same mobo, different CPU...this time a P4 1.6a Northwood [mobile - 12x133], would this run better than the Celeron, P3 Dually?

 

[jose]

Yes , but don't forget you will a significant boost by doing hardware raid . ie 3Ware ide w/ 4 drives

Also w/ pc2100 ddr you prob. won't be able to oc'd to 2.4ghz, get some pc2700 at the bare min.

BTW which mobo ? P4B533 ??

Regards,
Jose

 

[amcdonald]

There's really no point in upgrading the server like that. Since you are hosting files, the most beneficial thing you could do would be to setup a quick raid configuration.

 

[frangus]

jose: If I do go the P4/Celeron route, the board will be a 845G based Epox 4G4A+. It has a Highpoint RAID chip built in and integrated gfx so I don't need additional cards.

amcdonald: So you are saying I should upgrade my RAID 1 to a RAID 5? How much is a RAID 5 controller go for and how many drives do I need to run a RAID 5?

 

[AndyHui]

You need at least 3 drives for a RAID5 array.

Given your server's current duties, I would say that no upgrades are necessary at all.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
At work I have a single-P3 933 server running Exchange for 75 users, hosting four laser printers, fileserving the users' folders for those 75 people, and acting as Primary Domain Controller. Its processor usage is usually around 5%. Check your CPU usage there, make sure you have enough RAM to suit the need, and don't fix what's not broken, that's my suggestion

I think this is smart advice... a file server isn't necessarily hard on the CPU. Money would be much better spend on more RAM or a nice RAID array. I would think RAID 1 would do fine since the read speed is near that of a RAID 0 array... and a file server probably won't have a large amount of writes going on at once will it?

 

[jose]

You probably don't need to upgrade like everyone mentions, BUT if its free then why not !

As for the Epox mobo, I don't have any experiance with that brand. I only use Intel or Asus mobo's.

But to answer your original question, a P4-1.6 is definitally faster than duel P3-550's. When you run duals/quads processors
you also have addl. operating system overhead to deal with. Only when your software applications ie. Oracle etc.
support dual processors do you see the benefit of a dual system.

As far the onboard raid (ide) , it's a software raid implementation, not in the same league as a hardware raid controller.
ie Mylex AccelleRaid 170lp etc.

So if your running a software raid0 already, then a faster processor should show some benefit, but now as much as a true
hardware raid controller.

Go ahead and get the new mobo w/ the 1.6 & at least 512mb of ram pref. (pc2700ddr).
But remember adding 2 addl. 120 wd drives along w/ a 4 channel 3Ware ide raid5 controller would show the largest improvement.

Good luck,
Regards,
Jose

 

[Confused]

The biggest change you will notice if serving files will be on your storage subsystem, and to move up to a gigabit ethernet connection to your switch.

Your current storage subsystem won't be taxing a 100mbit connection, which theoretically is 12.5MB/sec max, more realistically 9-10MB/sec. Your hard drives should be able to sustain 50MB/sec easily.

Move up to a gigabit uplink from switch to the computer, and that will be where you will see a benifit, and you might also need to upgrade your storage subsystem if you do that, as your network connection will no longer be the bottleneck as it is currently.


Confused

 

[mechBgon]

What Confused said. If you actually want to improve performance, consider one of these, perhaps: Linksys 8-port all-gigabit switch That, combined with some gigabit NICs, would really light a fire under the network speed. This Linksys switch is $265 at MWave.com, btw.

 

[jose]

What's your outside connection ? DSL , cable , T1 ??

A gigabit nic and switch won't do anything for your outside connection... A T1 is 10Mb/s thats maxed out w/ a 10baseT card..

You'd have to replace all your internal nics/switches w/ gigabit nics to see any difference. Personally its probably a waste of time & money.

One of my customers the City of Baton Rouge runs a 100Mb internal network, they have over 800 nodes.

Like I said your biggest improvement will be as following:

1. Hardware Raid (3Ware + 2 addl drives in Raid 5)
2. Upgrade mobo because its software raid and it's free

Regards,
Jose

 

[frangus]

I'm on a T-1. I think we won't upgrade to gigabit at the moment, 100mbps is good enough for now. As for RAID 5, I will be seriously considering it. I will do some reasearch, there is a lot of mention of 3Ware, those guys the #1 in terms of hardware RAID cards? If I do get a hardware RAID, i'm sure I'll probably need a 64bit/66mhz PCI slot and mobo that supports it to take full advantage, no?

 

[mechBgon]

What do you expect to gain from RAID5, other than fault tolerance? All the storage throughput in the world won't help if it's all bottlenecked by a 100MBit network connection in the end anyway.

IMHO, for a home server that presumably serves media files (?), going to a 64-bit RAID card in a PCI-X slot seems like building a customized Dodge Viper to drive to the store and buy milk and peanut butter And as long as you've got a 10 megabyte/second network connection that could be saturated by most any 7200rpm IDE drive, you might as well stop with IDE RAID1, or else it's the equivalent of driving your blueprinted Viper on sheer ice too... lots of power, no way to get it to the ground. Eh?

 

[calvink]

who the heck runs a T1 in a home? and needs to make a decision right away.... for a home. it's pretty impractical to run a T1 in a home when DSL and Cable are a lot cheaper and provide the same speeds or better. You could even go dual DSL and Cable, and it'd still be cheaper than a T1 It seems pretty impractical to even bother needing RAID for a "home" server... how many members of the family do you expect to access large media files simutaneously? just my 2 cents.