RE: Dual processor PIII 866 versus single Pentium 1.4Ghz
personally i would always stick to intel, especially in a server
environment, and in your situation i would go for the dual p3 soloution
-----Original Message-----
From: John
To: mdevin@ozemail.com.au; Debian-user
Sent: 20/06/01 18:29
Subject: Re: Dual processor PIII 866 versus single Pentium 1.4Ghz
Ill tell you right now. DONT GET INTEL CPUS. they are horrid now-a-days.
AMD
chips are based off of newer architecture, have 33% more on-chip chache,
and
can run at even 266mhz system bus, as opposed to only 133mhz p3. Athlons
also
have 3 Floating point pipelines, as opposed to p3's 1.
all of that, and AMD chips are WAY cheaper.
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 06:29, mdevin@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> This is not a debian specific question, but I know there are some
> hardware experts out there that may be able to help me and I would
much
> appreciate it :-)
>
> I am considering upgrading our server at work. I don't fully
appreciate
> the performance advantage / disadvantages of dual processors and SCSI
> hardisks.
>
> Here is what I have been recommended to get:
> 2x Intel Pentium III 866 Mhz
> Intel TUPELO (STL2) Motherboard Dual Processor capable
> Adaptec AIC-7899 dual channel SCSI controller
> 2x 512 Mb Intel Certified ECC Registered Memory
> 2x Cheetah Seagate 36Gb LVD Hard Disks
> + network cards, floppy, CDROM, etc.
>
> Basically, my question is: What would the difference in performance
be
> between this configuration versus say a single P4 1.4Ghz?
>
> This server will unfortunately have to run Windows NT (as the
> proprietary software requires it). It is basically a database server
> with 8x 486s acting as essentially dumb terminals. They will run a
> basic version of the proprietary software and all the processing will
be
> done by the server.
>
> 1. What do people think about whether it is worth spending the extra
> money for dual processors? Does Win NT fully utilise dual processors?
> It is nearly $1500 (Aus) for the motherboard! But a P4 1.4 GHz is
much
> the same price (I think), but the mother board would be cheaper then.
>
> 2. Is it worth spending the extra money on a SCSI controller and hard
> disks?
>
> Here is what the specs say on the SCSI HD:
> Formatted Capacity: 36.4GB
> Interface: 68-pin
> Ultra2/SCSI
> Data Transfer Rates: 160MB/s
> Average Seek Times: 5.4ms
> Buffer Size: 16MB
> Rotational Speed: 10000rpm
> Height (inch/mm): LP (1.0/25.4)
>
> Here is the specs on a 40Gb Western Digital IDE 7200 RPM:
> WD CaviarTM 40GB EIDE Hard Drive WD400BB
> Transfer mode: 100 MB/s
> Average Read seek: 8.9ms
>
> So the SCSI spins faster and has lower average access times. I
suppose
> this means that it would be of benefit when you are talking about a
> large database server with multiple terminals connected.
>
> It is just hard to work all this out from the specs. Can anyone speak
> from experience on these issues? Especially regarding the dual
> processor versus single but faster processor.
>
> Thanks for help.
> Mark.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
######################################################################
Attention:
Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and not
necessarily those of GlobalNetFinancial.com or its subsidiary companies.
######################################################################
Reply to: