On 06/19/2013 10:05 AM, lelandj wrote:
On 06/19/2013 02:16 AM, Mike Copeland wrote:
Thanks Leland. The i5 my current build is using has 4 cores and Linux
shows that it rarely uses more than two. I guess my users just aren't
very demanding!
Mike
My build is an AMD Phenom II X6 1100T with 16GB memory running out of
my house. I'm running several apps off this one box including
PostgreSQL, Apache, Postfix and dbmail. A modperl application running
under Apache connects to the PostgreSQL database using a customary web
based interface. This means all connection to my PostgreSQL database
are local, (eg Apache connects to posgreSQL responding to users
accessing web pages. I think this is more secure, but less efficient
than a more direct connection model; because, PostgreSQL uses the
Apache web server like a proxy or middle man. LOL
PostgreSQL can make good use of multi-core processors; even though
PostgreSQL is not multithreaded. PostgreSQL uses connection pooling
to reduce process costs, in which connections are reused as they
become available. PosgreSQL can have multiple concurrent connections
with each connection running under its own process simultaneously with
other query processes, but no parallel processing, where many thread,
(eg small processes), run under a single process. I really don't need
parallelism where a single query is broken down into multiple jobs
running conurrently. PostgreSQL is my database of choice, especially
when running under UNIX or Linux. Its strong, reliable, and compliant.
Relatively specking, my system is practically under no load, so I'm
good to go here at the house. If I ever needed a real server, I would
probably need to move operations to an outside location; because,
there are so many other limiting factors besides CPU power.
Regards,
LelandJ
I forgot to mention that PostgreSQL is not only "strong, reliable, and
compliant, but its also 100% open source.
Regards,
LelandJ
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NF] Intel i5 vs. Xeon CPU for a data server
From: lelandj <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: 6/18/2013 4:32 PM
The server CPU, (eg AMD's Opteron and Intel's Xeon), come with 8,
12, 16, 32, etc cores per CPU, which are useful with multithreaded
applications design to serve multiple local and internet users
accessing the application concurrently. Also, the design of the
motherboards, using server CPUs, often come with sockets to handle
multiple CPUs. This allow the server computer to push much more
bandwidth out than the typical desktop computer, given the same
scenario.
Regards,
LelandJ
#-------------------------------
Excerpt
The server CPU
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance#>
and desktop CPU are designed with two different targets in mind.
Server CPU's are meant to handle many tasks simultaneously and
efficiently so that multiple users can operate from it with adequate
performance. Desktop CPU's are meant to handle a couple of
simultaneous tasks quickly so that one user can operate with good
performance.
Without getting into CPU architecture
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance#>,
for a person using a desktop for normal desktop operations (word
processing, internet browsing, media playback, gaming, etc) a
desktop CPU is what you want; however, if you run virtual sessions,
have multiple users accessing your computer running terminal
services or if you have large databases stored on your computer
which are being accessed routinely then you most certainly want a
server CPU.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/350660-28-server-desktop-gaming-performance
#-----------------------------------
#---------------------------------------
Excerpt
The differences between desktop and server CPUs:
1. Lifespan and duty cycle. Server CPUs are rated to run for longer
periods of time at 100% sustained loads, whereas desktop parts are
rated for less (although they will often run darn near forever.) I
know AMD rates their Opterons for 5 years at 100% load 24/7 versus
three years for the desktop chips.
2. Price. A server chip that is essentially identical to a desktop
chip will cost somewhat more.
3. The ability to handle server-type platform features like
error-correcting memory (although all of AMD's desktop CPUs with the
possible exception of the Semprons have ECC support as well) and
registered memory.
4. Some server chips can be run in multiple-CPU setups, whereas all
desktop CPUs have been strictly single-CPU-only setups for quite a
few years. They have this ability either through additional I/O
links that desktop CPUs lack or have disabled.
5. Server CPUs frequently use different sockets than desktop CPUs.
Server CPUs running in two-CPU setups sometimes use different
sockets than desktop and server CPUs for four-CPU and higher servers
always use different sockets than desktop.
6. Server CPUs frequently have more cores than desktop CPUs, since
server workloads are much more multithreaded than most desktop
workloads. AMD sells 8 and 12-core server CPUs and Intel sells
8-core server CPUs, while none of them sell more than 6-core CPUs
for desktops.
Server motherboards are considerably different from desktop
motherboards. Server motherboards are built for reliability and
stability, not for flashiness. They use generic green PCBs with
simple, unadorned heatsinks
<http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/298442-28-desktop-server#> and
have absolutely no overclocking options whatsoever. They almost all
have a rudimentary onboard graphics chip that hangs off the PCI or
PCIe bus rather than sitting in the northbridge. They also have
serial ports, PS/2 ports, generally have at least two gigabit
Ethernet ports, rarely have onboard sound, and frequently have only
a couple of USB ports. They also frequently have many more RAM slots
than desktop boards, multiple CPU sockets, SAS controllers, and are
often larger than desktop boards. Oh, and they also cost quite a bit
more than a desktop board that is otherwise similar.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/298442-28-desktop-server
#-----------------------------------------
Regards,
Lelandj
On 06/18/2013 02:12 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
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.
--- 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/[email protected]
** 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.
