David Rankin wrote:
> If the machines were strictly database machines or strictly fileservers,
> the extra CPU probably would not matter, since the server processes aren't
> multi-threaded. However, dual CPUs would allow the machine to (practically)
> dedicate a CPU for file service and the second for database work.
>
> That said, you might consider taking the money for 3 dual-CPU machines and
> cost out 6 "smaller" boxes, three for database work strictly, and the other
> three strictly for file service. This will help lessen memory and I/O
> bottlenecks, which are more likely than CPU bottlenecks anyway.
I have seen file servers get CPU bound, though not lately. In this
example, the extra CPU will be able to run the various other processes
-- databases, volserver, bos, backup, as well as the operating system
and miscellany. I think the critical factors in this decision are
(1) the volume of volume operations
(2) Price of 3x2 servers vs price of 3x1 servers + 3 castoff old pieces
of junk to use for database servers.
Another thing to consider is that multi-homed database servers are not
currently supported, and you will probably want to multihome the file
server.
