Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Need some help I am new to the dedicated scene. I would like to know what would be better for hosting 150-200 sites.

    Celeron 600, 512MB RAM, 20GB HD
    or
    PIII 650 256KB Cache, 128MB RAM, 9GB SCSI HDD

    Now I know which one would be faster but would the PIII smoke the Celeron or could the Celeron keep all those sites up and running with its difference in ram without to much trouble?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    337
    That's a tough call... those systems both have some distinct advantages.

    The extra RAM is nice for disk caching. However, the SCSI hard disk will generally give you better performance, especially under load.

    I don't think you'll see appreciable differences between the two processors, unless you're runnning heavy CGI or other scripting.

    If I had to make a choice, I'd take the second one. You can always add more RAM later if you decide you need it. (However, if you aren't running NT, I doubt you will.)


  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    917
    If you expect heavy cgi use then go for the PIII and the scsi drive. If you just expect moderate cgi use and serving html pages than the celeron will be more than enough.

    The RAM is the key here. The celeron system with the extra ram will most definitely outperfrom the PIII once you get a few dozen sites on it. If your swap space on the scsi drive is large, than it doesn't matter what kind of cpu you have. But, like mentioned above, you can always add ram.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    731
    techtv did some benchmarks over the Celeron 600 and the P3 600.

    They found there was a 50% difference in speed.

    Go for the P3.

  5. #5
    Even though the PIII has a faster cpu, I personally recommend going with the celeron... because your sites will chew through the 128 ram in a few seconds... the CPU will be far enough unles they are all running huge CGIs.

    RAM will be more used, especially if you have stuff like ASP, mod_php, MySQL or mod_perl.
    Félix C.Courtemanche · webmaster@can-host.com
    Can-Host Networks · http://www.can-host.com
    web«cp Control Panel · http://webcp.can-host.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    917
    fibroptikl,

    raw benchmarks do not equal superior performance in real world applications. You can have a 1ghz cpu with 128 megs of ram, plop 200 moderately busy sites on it and a celeron 366 with 512mb of ram will outperform it. The key here is to have as much ram as possible to avoid large swap files and minimize disk i/o activity.

    Now, put the same amount of ram in the P3 and that's a whole different story.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    309

    Question Okie... 3 little questions...

    "PIII 650 256KB Cache, 128MB RAM, 9GB SCSI HDD ... as posted at the top of this thread..."

    1. What does this 256 KB Cache do different from the 128 MB RAM. Cache is also a RAM chip, correct?

    "If your swap space on the scsi drive is large..."

    2. What is *swap space*? What are the benefits? Could we have this on a NON-SCSI drive as well?

    "and minimize disk i/o activity..."

    3. The *i/o* stands for *input/output*, correct? So how does one take measures to minimize i/o activity?

    Thanks in advance for your responses.

    Learner

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,991

    Cool

    Learner,

    2. swap space is virtual ram. A portion of hard drive space is allocated for use as ram. It can be run on a non-scsi drive, but scsi is faster than ide, therefore providing better performance.

    3. Disk Input/Output is measured with certain programs. But an easier way to measure I/O load is to listen to the hard drive. If it's continually making noise, e.g. always reading and writing data, then it's under heavy load. The common term for that amount of load is thrashing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    309
    Thanks a lot, JTY... nice clear explanations !!!!! I get the picture now !!!!!

    i still don't know about the first question though... so will wait for a member to post !!!!!

    Learner

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    917
    Hi Learner,

    1. 256k of cache refers to the memory that is built into the cpu. It is not an actual chip since it's on the die of the cpu. It's much faster than having to access the RAM because it runs at the clock speed of the cpu (hence 650 mhz = cache that runs at 650 mhz).

    2. Swap space, as JTY has mentioned, is your virtual memory. Virtual memory is space on your harddrive that imitates RAM (when you run out of physical RAM your OS emulates it buy using the hard drive). But accessing the hard drive is much, much slower than accessing data from RAM.

    3. The more RAM you have in your computer the less your computer will have to resort to using "Virtual Memory" or "Swap" space on your hard drive, therefore minimizing hard drive input/output (which is very slow in comparison to RAM or Cache access)


  11. #11
    ... now you know why a xeon 800 mhx with 4mb of cache is good. It can cache and do more than any other somewhat equivalent CPU


    My advice still is good. unless you plan to buy extra RAM, go with the celeron. Web serving isn't the most CPU intensive task... but it sure is RAM intensive.
    Félix C.Courtemanche · webmaster@can-host.com
    Can-Host Networks · http://www.can-host.com
    web«cp Control Panel · http://webcp.can-host.com

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    309
    Originally posted by tabernack
    256k of cache refers to the memory that is built into the cpu. It is not an actual chip since it's on the die of the cpu. It's much faster than having to access the RAM because it runs at the clock speed of the cpu (hence 650 mhz = cache that runs at 650 mhz).
    Thanks Tabernack !!!

    I think I still have a little doubt about one little thing. You mentioned that the cache runs at the clock speed of the CPU. I am slightly confused here.

    I am asking to clarify this because I think that RAM is extremely fast ie. data is transferred in nanoseconds... billionths of a second. Wouldn't a cache running at the clock speed of the CPU be much slower than accessing RAM then?

    Learner

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    917
    RAM access, even though it seems to be very fast (nanoseconds), is still much slower than accessing the cpu cache. Don't forget, when the cpu has to make a request to retrieve data from RAM it has a much further distance (and at a much slower speed (ie: pc100 = 100mhz RAM) then if the cpu retrieves data from it's own cache.

    For example,

    let's say you want a glass of water right NOW, and you have 2 choices:

    1) A glass of water right in front of you sitting on your desk.

    or

    2) A glass of water that you must get by going to the fridge, pouring some into a glass, and then returning to your desk.

    Which one will take less time?

    That's why Xeon processors are so expensive, because on-die cache is very expensive and Xeon's have lots of it.

    I just want to clarify that PII's and first generation PIII's had cache that ran at half the cpu clock speed (just wanted to mention that so someone wouldn't have to post it)

  14. Newsletters

    Subscribe Now & Get The WHT Quick Start Guide!

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •