Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    97

    Which server would peform better: faster processor or better bandwidth?

    I am new to hosting matters and would appreciate advice from experienced folks as to which server would give better performance for a site that runs a script serving non-cached dynamic pages with plenty of photos and makes a ton of calls to the SQL database:

    Server A

    Intel Celeron 1.7Ghz
    Ram: 512MB DDR
    Hard Drive: 80GB IDE
    Bandwidth: 10MBIT unmetered bandwidth, dedicated line
    TraceRoute from site's audience location to server: 158.131 ms

    Server B

    Athlon XP 2200
    512MB DDR RAM
    60 GB 7200 RPM
    Bandwidth: 10MBIT unmetered bandwidth, shared with pool of unmetered customers
    TraceRoute from site's audience location to server: 283.801 ms

    Which would you recommend?

    This is not theory, I need to make a decision to get one of the two; I have withheld the hosting providers so as to not enter a debate as to which hosting provider is better.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY USA
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by Cripto
    I am new to hosting matters and would appreciate advice from experienced folks as to which server would give better performance for a site that runs a script serving non-cached dynamic pages with plenty of photos and makes a ton of calls to the SQL database:

    Server A

    Intel Celeron 1.7Ghz
    Ram: 512MB DDR
    Hard Drive: 80GB IDE
    Bandwidth: 10MBIT unmetered bandwidth, dedicated line
    TraceRoute from site's audience location to server: 158.131 ms

    Server B

    Athlon XP 2200
    512MB DDR RAM
    60 GB 7200 RPM
    Bandwidth: 10MBIT unmetered bandwidth, shared with pool of unmetered customers
    TraceRoute from site's audience location to server: 283.801 ms

    Which would you recommend?

    This is not theory, I need to make a decision to get one of the two; I have withheld the hosting providers so as to not enter a debate as to which hosting provider is better.
    Seems to me you would be better off with Server B, since from the sounds of it, you need more processing power than low latency.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    A traceroute or ping doesn’t do justice to a company’s network. Rather, it is simply the number of hops it takes to get from your location to the IP’s—which you didn’t even post. Those two servers are comparable—nothing great, but they might work. It really depends on how much I/O you’re going to be doing. If you’re making a “ton” of calls to the SQL database (I don’t really know what you mean by that; a quantitative measurement might help a little more), you might need something a little beefier—perhaps a P4/Athlon 64.

    I’m sorry, but it’s technically not possible to measure a network unless you provide its name or a traceroute to it (which would, in most cases, reveal its name). The ping itself is relatively unimportant for a web server.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    617
    Server A look better. You are on your own dedicated line.. that is a plus. You got bigger hard disk for storage..

  5. #5
    I vote for Server A, dedicated-line bandwith is really important.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    62
    Server A!.. from my experience 280ms ping means bad..
    I know some people say it doesn't matter.. but this is my experience.. if I have a 280ms ping with a host and download something.. its slow..

    So.. the fast CPU will be useless.. because it will be bogged down with tons of slow downloads.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Nyc
    Posts
    108
    Server A because it has a bigger harddrive and better bandwidth
    :|

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    1,044
    It's impossible to compare the networks/bandwidth based solely off of a pingtime.
    » ReliableServers.com
    » Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Cloud » Servers | CDN
    » 1000 Gbps Network | New Jersey DataCenter
    » 973-849-0535

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    62
    What if the ping is 1000ms ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperDevil
    A traceroute or ping doesn’t do justice to a company’s network. Rather, it is simply the number of hops it takes to get from your location to the IP’s—which you didn’t even post. Those two servers are comparable—nothing great, but they might work. It really depends on how much I/O you’re going to be doing. If you’re making a “ton” of calls to the SQL database (I don’t really know what you mean by that; a quantitative measurement might help a little more), you might need something a little beefier—perhaps a P4/Athlon 64.

    I’m sorry, but it’s technically not possible to measure a network unless you provide its name or a traceroute to it (which would, in most cases, reveal its name). The ping itself is relatively unimportant for a web server.
    Ok, here's more info:

    Server A: 17 hops and 161.401 ms total

    Server B: 12 hops and 289.440 ms total

    I don't have a measure of the number of calls the script makes to the database, but some eight hosts have suspended my account in a shared environment saying that the site was using and excessive amount of CPU resources, like 70% in some cases.

    Thanks everyone for your candid opinions, I am loving this forum, it's fun and useful

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    52
    You're in the same position I am in with the SQL server issues. I had hosted some parts of my website on shared hosting plans and never made it more than a month before the site brought them down like a falling boulder. I finally picked up a dedicated box solely for the SQL server and main website and have had to on three different occasions move the site to more powerful servers because the SQL server would bog down the whole box.

    The hops and pings are things to look at but the more important thing is where are those hops going through to cause those ping times, what kind of pipe does the provider have and the such but overall your need is for processing power so I'd be looking for a good deal on at least a P4 HT or dual Opteron if you don't want to have to upgrade again a few months down the road. If your site is not using a mass amount of bandwidth but is using processor time the processor is key.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SniperDevil
    A traceroute or ping doesn’t do justice to a company’s network. Rather, it is simply the number of hops it takes to get from your location to the IP’s—which you didn’t even post. Those two servers are comparable—nothing great, but they might work. It really depends on how much I/O you’re going to be doing. If you’re making a “ton” of calls to the SQL database (I don’t really know what you mean by that; a quantitative measurement might help a little more), you might need something a little beefier—perhaps a P4/Athlon 64.

    I’m sorry, but it’s technically not possible to measure a network unless you provide its name or a traceroute to it (which would, in most cases, reveal its name). The ping itself is relatively unimportant for a web server.

    I agree. Not looking at the quality of the network and comparing that between the two would be a big mistake.

  13. #13
    Your priority is processor performance unless the shared pipe is overcharged. Ask your provider how many servers on that pipe. Good luck with your choice.
    Easy Image Hosting - http://easyimagehosting.net
    Your ultimate image hosting

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    2,549
    I don't see why you are comparining the networks to the processing speed.

    Either server will do virtually the same, I would suggest getting a better server than both of them.

    Celerons have little cache so the processor has to work alot more than a better server would do, however depending on the exact specs you require it could probley handle what you need and more, or it could not even be any good, you have to specify more information.

    What are you querying? How many visitors/second? How many querys/page load? How many rows are being examined?

    Have you thought about just optomizing?
    Server Management - AdminGeekZ.com
    Infrastructure Management, Web Application Performance, mySQL DBA. System Automation.
    WordPress/Magento Performance, Apache to Nginx Conversion, Varnish Implimentation, DDoS Protection, Custom Nginx Modules
    Check our wordpress varnish plugin. Contact us for quote: [email protected]

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Kihei, HI
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Take-IT-EZZI
    Seems to me you would be better off with Server B, since from the sounds of it, you need more processing power than low latency.
    I would agree. If the server is doing a lot of processing, then you want the best CPU for the $$. Even though that AMD isn't all that fast, its probably going to give between 2-3x the CPU performance of that Celeron. The lack of cache and slower FSB in the Pentium 4 based Celerons cripples them badly.

    HTH!
    :: 1StopWebHosting.com :: - Professional Web Hosting Services
    ::
    :: Featuring the CPanel Control Panel running on CENTOS Linux servers
    :: We offer Shared Web Hosting, Business Hosting, Java / J2EE Servers and Dedicated Server solutions.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    97
    Thank you everyone, truly excellent ideas and a diversity of opinions...

    I will go with the faster processor, will let you guys know how it goes. I am using a regular blog script (WordPress) for the site, and I will try to implement a cache so as to reduce the number of database calls.

    Server B, the one with more processing power, also has a smaller number of hops even though it takes 280 ms to get there... so it seems to have an advantage. I hope the Athlon withstand the visitors, which can be around uniques 2,000 per hour on busy times.

    Great forum and a lot of experienced webmasters, thanks everyone!

Posting Permissions

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