Hi,

I will be runing a webtracker software in the near future and here is my dilemma! :)

the guy whos selling this script is saying that p4 2ghz with 2gig ram and scsi can handle 100-170 request per second...

if I get a quad p3 500 with 2mb and 4gig of ram + scsi... how many request can this box handle based on p4 performance?


ps: 1 mysql request per request to count the traffic..


John

Since when P3 can go quad processor?

It's most likely a P3 Xeon processor. At work we have quite a few Quad P3 500s. They're lots of fun to play with. :)

My dualie xeon 1.8 ghz with 2 gb ram + scsi can chew through 350 mysql queries per second for extended periods.

If this info helps :)

i would like some info on the performance of those old high end xeons with lots of cache compared with modern p4s and entry level xeons too.

lower clock+lower fsb+more cache

vs

higher clock+higher fsb+less cache

wuts the final result?

my dual xeon 2.66 w/2gb ram can do 500/sec with ease..

I average over 150/sec and load of about .7

I dont actually have any test results to support my opinion, and there are many arguements and sides to this "math" problem.

The P4 has a better architecture, faster bus, etc. So if you only take that into consideration, the quad p3 500mhz max should be lower then the p4s depending on the amount of caching needed (since the p3 system has more available memory).

So by this logic, the p3 system will be able to do less than the 100-170 requests per second.

I wish I could give you a number, but I dont have a system like this, and the equation I would have to come up with would be too complicated, take me a while, and Im sure someone will come along and blast it. So hopefully there is someone here that has a quad p3 here.

however im almost sure that quad p3 xeon w/ 2mb cache is more expensive than a single p4. :)

I'm sure the quad P3 will be able to handle more than a single P4. Just have no idea how much more.

thanks guys

much appreciated

John

so dual xeon with 2gig of ram = 500request per second with ease...

so an quand p3 500 2mg with 4gig of ram would handlee somewhere 100*4 = 400 sql input per second?

John

quad P3 500.. is probably near 150/second.. not as much as dual xeons..

note that the quad xeons he mentioned r the high end xeons with 2mb cache. thats a total of 8mb cache.

We have a dual PIII 500 Xeon machine being used as a web-server for a client. The machine has the 2mb cache PIII's and has 1GB RAM + 4 18.2GB 10k RPM SCSI's. It is quad capable(Proliant 6500), and handles loads quite well..

I will do a MySQL benchmark for you later this evening to see what it can handle, and at what load. This should give you a rough idea of what the quad machine would be capable of(however with more RAM, etc).

Peter

Thanks e12pilot... very anxious to see the results... since my instinct tells me that it can handle 500-1000 per second,,

hehe
John

Wow ROFL I have a SINGLE Celeron 2.0 Ghz - in a couple weeks.

Too much beer for the fella above :\

:) Iam on my 6th beer... the night's gonna be very loooooonnnnnnnngg:)

I dunno if I've had too much beer... I'm 14. rofl but ty :D

Agentneo,
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I have been quite busy these last couple of days :-)

Has anyone else noticed what a PITA it is to get the MySQL benchmark RPM to install successfully on a Redhat 8.0 system?

Anyway, I didn't have the time to install it, so I did it the semi-cheap way. Used PHPMyAdmin. Here are the specs of my "benchmark" with the Dual PIII 500mhz 2mb cache CPU's.

CPU Info: Pentium III (Katmai) 500mhz. 2mb cache.
RAM Info: 1GB ECC
Drive Config: 4 18.2GB Ultra II SCSI (Raid 5, with 1 spare)
System: Compaq Proliant 6500

Here are the database specifics:
MySQL 3.23.58-Max
Table Size: 1436 rows, mostly varchar fields
SQL Query: SELECT first,last,email FROM test WHERE 0=0

The same query was opened at the same time among four browser windows.

Here are the results as reported by PHP MyAdmin:

Window #1: Showing rows 0 - 1435 (1436 total, Query took 0.0478 sec)

Window #2: Showing rows 0 - 1435 (1436 total, Query took 0.0555 sec)

Window #3: Showing rows 0 - 1435 (1436 total, Query took 0.0507 sec)

Window #4: Showing rows 0 - 1435 (1436 total, Query took 0.0581 sec)

It is important to note that all of the SQL statements were selecting data, no inserting.

Hope this helps, and please let me know if anyone has a more reliable testing script....

Thanks,

Peter

ummm did u run the same test on another server for comparison?

Thanks e12pilot,


So looking at the result your quad monster can hanlled (1436*4)= 5700 in 0.0581 second... does writing data takes more time? or should be similar

John