Dual is obviously more processing power, but you've increased the chances of failure!

So, which do you prefer and why?

Dual, because you haven't increased the chances of failure by any significant amount.

Dual.

Originally posted by Winkie
Dual, because you haven't increased the chances of failure by any significant amount.

Well, actually the CPU is a major SPOF and having two of them actually doubles the chance of failure (it's not like if one fails, the other will take over:stickout: )

Anyone else?
And why?
My grandma can say "dual" without knowing what she's talking about-- back it up.

At this point it seems like a single is better for hosting.
So, what do you think?

put another stick of ram in, double the risk of a ram failure !

get decent processors, make sure they're cooled sufficiently and 99% of the time you'll be fine..

what more do you need to know?

you need an OS that supports SMP, which is most modern server ones. some do it better than others.

other than that you need to ask yourself why you'd need a second one. what are you trying to offer, is the current one getting overloaded by all the stuff you run, would it be cheaper to buy a better cpu than a second one (+ all the other hardware that goes with it)

Originally posted by kwes43
Well, actually the CPU is a major SPOF and having two of them actually doubles the chance of failure (it's not like if one fails, the other will take over:stickout: )


If redunancy is that important to you, I wouldn't even be thinking about using x86 architecture(unless you plan on clustering). Sun's can handle cpu failure good by removing the faulty hardware from the config as can others like sgi, hp, ibm, ect. But if I had to use x86, I would get a dual cpu server. I have never seen a cpu failure yet and its more then likely other hardware will fail first.

dual of course ;)

Definitely dual processors, but it depends what you're using the server for. For shared web hosting servers, dual processors are required, if you're using the server for development, then you might be able to get away with a single processor. But no doubt about it, dual for shared servers.

The reason is the ability to do more multiple tasks at the same time and this is needed for a shared server where you have hundreds of websites trying to use the server.

Alan

Dual is useful for a webserver. If one of your customers is gzipping a huge database using 99% cpu, everyone on your server will notice the horrible lag. With a dual cpu setup there will be minimal disturbance.

dual of course.

come one you guys. when has anyone seen an intel cpu failing?

dual will give so much more power that is if you need the power.

i always use dual cpus on my servers which ever is the case. need or no need . an intel cpu dosent cost that much and it worths to get a second one.

Originally posted by kwes43
Well, actually the CPU is a major SPOF and having two of them actually doubles the chance of failure (it's not like if one fails, the other will take over:stickout: )

Trace 23 from mosfet 3 is a major SPOF aswell.

Think about it, almost any component burns out on your board and you have a dead server, CPUs are more reliable than capacitors and similar.

Keep the CPU below 60, the system below 40 and you're going to have no problems.

Statistically you've increased the chance of catastrophic hardware failure, from about 1/1000000000 to 1/1000500000

Not really a huge amount.

Originally posted by Winkie
Trace 23 from mosfet 3 is a major SPOF aswell.

Think about it, almost any component burns out on your board and you have a dead server, CPUs are more reliable than capacitors and similar.

Keep the CPU below 60, the system below 40 and you're going to have no problems.

Statistically you've increased the chance of catastrophic hardware failure, from about 1/1000000000 to 1/1000500000

Not really a huge amount.

very well said

Originally posted by solent
very well said
<elvis>aaaaaaaaathankyou</elvis>