I had a quick search but could not see much of a discussion about which rackshack server is better. I have decided to get a server, far backup, hosting a few high bandwidth sites and to see how it goes. Keeping my core sites at venturesonline for now though :)

Anyway, I want to get either the:

AMD Duron 1GHZ with 1GB RAM and 2 x 20GB drives

OR

PIII 1GHZ with 512MB RAM and 2 x 40GB drives

If the PIII only had the 20GB drives (which it will do soon when the current servers run out) then I would get the Duron because 512MB ram must be better than the difference in processor(?). As it is now the large hard drives are pushing me to the PIII. What do you recommend?

well when it comes to servers ram seems to be the major factor in how well the system will perform...

IMO I'd take the 1gig of ram any day. but it really just depends on what the sites are doing. if they're high bandwidth becuase their file sites then you don't need much ram and the extra drive space would be handy. but if they're high bandwidth becuase they get lots of hits and are running tons of scripts the extra ram will be mighty handy...

Dexter is absolutely correct. The Durons with a gig of ram will not be available until at least after December 15th, possibly later. I got the PIII 1GHz 512 because I can use the space as I have a tendency to be tinkering inside all the time. I only have my personal sites to put on it, so 512MB of ram is fine. If you're in the hosting business and have a lot of heavy script usage sites vs. heavy disk real estate with static content sites, then go with the Duron. If it's the large static stuff, go with the Intel. Only you know how many sardines you pack in a can.

If you are not runnig a hosting service and only have a dozen personal sites like myself, then go Intel. A 1Ghz PIII with 512MB of ram is a pretty stiff server, especially with 80 gigs of disk.

that (http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=20) might help you

incredible how slow the duron gets on internet content creation

Originally posted by NORRITT
that (http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=20) might help you

incredible how slow the duron gets on internet content creation

although sysmarks internet content creation is workstation test on how well a system can do website design stuff like processing photoshop, dreamweaver, flash, and encoding window media files.

it's no where near an indication of how well a duron will run as a linux server...

It's not quite clear. I was told that the new durons were almost as good as the PIII's...
Is it true? Is there a lot of difference?
How do you know how many sites you can have on a server (is it mainley done on the amount of bandwith or number of sites ).
With about 100 sites I'm using a maximum of 2gb bandwith per month and the CPU seems to always be low...
How many sites do you think the Duron 1Gb ram 1Ghz could manage (space doesn't matter much (100 sites take up less than 1gb). Could it manage as much as 1000 ? or is it nearer 500 or 600 ?
Please give me your advice ... concidering I'm using a raq4 at the moment (128mb ram, K62 450 mhz)and they say that this small box can run up to 250 sites ...

it is NOT as fast as a PIII 1Ghz.

but look at the database benchmarks with a dual duron! it is almost as fast as a PIII dual system!

yeah, that kind of sites you can sure host more than 500, even on a duron system. as you already said the raq4i is not very fast and the I/O system is extremely antiqueted but can manage 100 and even more (rackshack is putting 200 accounts on each raq4i with 512 MB RAM and as they told me it is working pretty fine)

try it, tell us! :)

Ok, I'll probable go for a duron gb ram in a month or two. I'll let U know then!

Pentium every time - No contest

I personaly prefer AMD. Athlons are better and faster and cheeper than PIV's and Durons are better faster and cheeper than Celerons. Duron's may be a bit slower than a PIII but the difference in price allows you to double the ram which makes it faster than the PIII, For the same price you always end up with a faster machine with AMD than Intel. Intel is only for people who don't care about money and are prepared to pay double for a 5% speed gain !

Originally posted by hoot
I personaly prefer AMD. Athlons are better and faster and cheeper than PIV's and Durons are better faster and cheeper than Celerons. Duron's may be a bit slower than a PIII but the difference in price allows you to double the ram which makes it faster than the PIII, For the same price you always end up with a faster machine with AMD than Intel. Intel is only for people who don't care about money and are prepared to pay double for a 5% speed gain !

Listen we aren't talking some PC for playing Quake or whatever you kids play these days. We are talking Linux webservers.

It's not all about speed, it's about performance, reliability and interoperability.

Just a thought :)

Do you need 1Gb ram to play quake?
On a linux server the most important thing is the ram and then the processor. If you buy a processor for half the price than another one which is only 10% less powerfull and you double the ram and put a faster hard disk. For the same price you end up with a faster machine. Of corse if you want every thing to be the maximum you should take a PIV 2Gb with 5Gb ram and a 10000turns/min SCSI hard disk, for a bomb, and the reason why you won't be able to get an AMD like this is because they don't make them expensive enough, but if you stick with a medium price than you are better off with AMD !

Depends what stuff your running on the server:


Static HTML: Processor, Disk, Ram
Perl: Ram, Processor, Disk
PHP: Ram, Disk, Processor


Horses for courses really.