[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multi processor System
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Multi processor System
- From: Henning Brauer <lists-openbsd_(_at_)_bsws_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:46:35 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
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.
> 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
> 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)
> 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. 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).
> >(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? 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.
> 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 :-(((
* Henning Brauer, hostmaster_(_at_)_bsws_(_dot_)_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.