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. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [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/E31C649FC8D2475FA43CAA4474CF2DB9@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.
