Re: Multi processor System

[Daniel MD <IM-Thinking@clix.pt>]

At 00:46 17-09-2001 +0200, you wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 10:11:07PM +0100, Daniel MD wrote:
> > At 12:51 16-09-2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > >It sounds a little strange that you are starting from a critera of
> > >"must support multi-processor" for what you called an "Entry level web
> > >server".  Usually, you should start from the task you are attempting
> > >to accomplish, not start by spec'ing out the hardware.
> > OH, sorry for not explaining my problem.
> > Well, from what i have seen this can only be called an entry level web
> > server, and the question i had was about support for multi-processor, the
> > task i am attempting to accomplish is to set up a web server for my
> > company, and host a couple of web sites for my clients, my main problem is
> > that most web sites will be pretty large, because they are FLASH animation
> > intensive, (i know it becomes more of a bandwith problem than a CPU 
> problem).
>
>This flash crap doesn't take more CPU cycles than any other same sized file
>on the server. CPU is absolutely no issue on most servers.

I did not say it did, but simply increases the load on the CPU I/O, plus it 
makes the pages very slow to load, and takes up allot of bandwidth, which 
means fewer request are being serviced.

> > Ok let me tell you my problem, i did not want to go extremely off-topic,
> > but since you are willing to help, and i appreciate all the help, here is
> > the problem.
> > I need a web server to run multiple web sites, my own site and a couple of
> > my clients sites, all sites are Flash Intensive, and my site has dynamic
> > page creation, backed by a database (not to large).
>
>Most likely easily handled by a P200 or so.
>
> > In the same system i have to run a graphical workstation environment
> > (win2k), to create the Flash Content,  Photoshop, 3D Studio Graphics, and
> > some Audio files.
>
>That's the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard.
>Use two machines. As an added benefit, this will be cheaper than your dual
>athlon setup.

Well i will have to do some cost research but i think you are wrong on this one

> > T1 Line
> > Dual Athlon 1.2GHz (i'm going AMD because of the price/performance, i 
> don't
> > have the cash to spend on Xeon processors)
> > Tyan Motherboard (AMD 760 MP chipset, ServerWorks chipsets are too rich 
> for
> > my blood, and all other "server" motherboards are just to expensive).
> > 512-1024Mb DDR Ram (Rambus is just too expensive)
> > Wacom A4 Tablet (pricey but well worth the money)
> > VMware (UNIX,Win2k)
> > OR
> > A good P4 Intel Box.
>
>
>Absoluteluy nonsense. Get two AMD Duron based machines with usual SDRAM and
>IDE disks. Overall faster and cheaper than your solution, and far more
>reliable.

Well i tend to doubt that, especially in the faster and more reliable part, 
and cheaper hum as i said i will have to double check that.

>You may use an older P200 or so, if you don't play dirty games
>with very inefficient genereated dynamic content this one should easily
>saturate a T1 link. I once did a test with OpenBSD on a much to small
>system, a P120 (this was nearly OK) and 32 MB RAM (should use much more). It
>could easily saturate a 10MBit/s link with static content (10000 files of 1k
>size or so, random choosen).

Now this is really good information, could you send me the test results, i 
am interested in the traffic barrier, wend does bandwidth became a problem, 
that hardware cannot solve.

> > >(if 2x1.2GHz is "entry level" what do you call my Pentium 75? 8-)
> > My mail server :-)
>
>Pah. Why do people always classify their machines by processor speed?

Actually i don't, i classify my machines by MIPS, reliability, and overall 
performance, i am writhing this email on a pentium 200 Mhz machine, that i 
have for around 5 years now, it is the most reliable piece of hardware i 
have, never had a problem with it, and the performance is great if you run 
a older OS, like linux, openBSD, win98, that don't burn down all your 
system resources like windows 2000.

>This is totally unimportant for many many many many server tasks. mail servers
>are an goo example. everything countimg here is RAM (moderate compared to a
>webserver) and especially queue disk bandwidth. Don't even think of running
>the queue and the mailstorage on one disk for non-trivial loads.

Actually i have a 120 Gb RAID 5 for Mail Storage, so i think this will not 
be a problem.

> > Well here is the problem, hope you can help out i am really confused, i
> > don't know if i should go Dual, Intel, or SUN, i have spend the weekend
> > reading reviews, and getting benchmark results, performance results, and
> > basically researching 24*7.
>
>Get AMD Duron based systems. Cheap, reliable, fast.
>I have to stop here, my notebook is out of batteries :-(

Well i am not very concern with the speed of the processor, i am more 
concerned with the speed of the overall performance, i want the user to 
enjoy the web site, not suffer and never comeback again.

But i think i will probably take two single processor machines, i see that 
the advantage i would get from SMP is non existent for most applications, 
and what i get from this list feedback, makes me think "computers have 
evolved practically nothing, they only became better Game Consoles"

>--
>* Henning Brauer, hostmaster@bsws.de, http://www.bsws.de    *
>* BS Web Services, Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
>Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
>(Dennis Ritchie)

Thanks Dennis, and please bear in mind i am only asking for advice, i want 
to save some $$$ in upgrade issues, this system will have to last at least 
a good solid 4 years.


Thank You for your time, Best Regards, and Have a Nice Day...
Daniel MD [DanielMD@im-thinking.com] of IM-Thinking Consulting.