hosted by liquidweb


Go Back   Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Dedicated Server : PIII or Celeron for a few sites
Reply

Forum Jump

PIII or Celeron for a few sites

Reply Post New Thread In Dedicated Server Subscription
 
Send news tip View All Posts Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2000, 01:13 AM
Ironlung Ironlung is offline
WHT Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 105
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?

Reply With Quote


Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 10-19-2000, 02:29 AM
Travis Travis is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
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.)


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-19-2000, 07:48 AM
webfors webfors is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
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.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 10-22-2000, 03:51 AM
Fiber Fiber is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
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.

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-22-2000, 04:10 PM
Félix C.Courtemanche Félix C.Courtemanche is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 587
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

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-22-2000, 08:35 PM
webfors webfors is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
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.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-22-2000, 09:40 PM
Learner Learner is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
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

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-22-2000, 09:47 PM
JTY JTY is offline
Community Guide
 
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.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-22-2000, 09:51 PM
Learner Learner is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
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

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-22-2000, 09:59 PM
webfors webfors is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
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)


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-23-2000, 10:59 AM
Félix C.Courtemanche Félix C.Courtemanche is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 587
... 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

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2000, 04:11 PM
Learner Learner is offline
Web Hosting Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 309
Quote:
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

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2000, 05:27 PM
webfors webfors is offline
Web Hosting Master
 
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)

Reply With Quote
Reply

Related posts from TheWhir.com
Title Type Date Posted
Microsoft Gains Most Sites in April: Netcraft Web Server Survey Web Hosting News 2014-05-01 08:33:47
nginx Regains Web Server Market Share in December Netcraft Survey Web Hosting News 2014-05-01 08:22:19
Microsoft Sees Largest Gains in Netcraft November Web Server Survey Web Hosting News 2013-11-04 16:01:02
Apache Loses 9.9 Million Sites in Netcraft April 2013 Web Server Survey Web Hosting News 2013-04-03 14:42:33
Web Hosting Sales and Promos Roundup - October 5, 2012 Web Hosting News 2014-05-23 15:43:36


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Postbit Selector

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump
Login:
Log in with your username and password
Username:
Password:



Forgot Password?
Advertisement:
Web Hosting News:



 

X

Welcome to WebHostingTalk.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

WebHostingTalk.com is the largest, most influentual web hosting community on the Internet. Join us by filling in the form below.


(4 digit year)

Already a member?