On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:19:12 -0600
Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Spend your money on more RAM, (32G isn't much more than 16G and
I've seen it make a world of difference on our servers). Spend it
on disks. Number of disks is often more important than RPM etc.
Spend it on fast
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:06:03AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
Could IO load show up as apparent CPU load?
I may not be interpreting you correctly; but, as I understand it, if
your IO subsystem is too slow then your CPUs are going to be idling. So
if your CPUs are sitting at 100%
On Thursday 26 March 2009, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo m...@webthatworks.it
wrote:
Could IO load show up as apparent CPU load?
It would show up as CPU busy in iowait state. If the CPU is actually busy it
would show mostly in user state, some in system.
--
Even a sixth-grader can figure out that
Hi. I have a questionf or people who run high traffic websites.
We are considering a new dedicated server host for a set of 25
domains, about 5 of which are very high traffic (80 million clicks a
day each). A lot of this is VIEW content, but there may be a million
or so INSERTs and UPDATEs.
I am
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Phoenix Kiula phoenix.ki...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi. I have a questionf or people who run high traffic websites.
We are considering a new dedicated server host for a set of 25
domains, about 5 of which are very high traffic (80 million clicks a
day each). A lot
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 23:12 +0530, Phoenix Kiula wrote:
Hi. I have a questionf or people who run high traffic websites.
My question: What's the high end recommendation? Is the following
config of 4 x quadcore Dunnington Intels with 4 disks on RAID 10 be
good enough for the above sites? Can
