Results 1 to 16 of 16
-
10-27-2006, 06:42 PM #1WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
which one? dempsey, woodcrest, xeon
Okay a few questions, (Hope this is the right forum) -I searched around but the info I read was confusing, so hopefully someone can put it in english for me
1. Which server is better out of the list below? and why?
2. Would it be better to have a 250gb h/d or 2x120gb raid and what raid would be the best set up? and why?
3. I will be running forums so mysql will be used quite heavy as the database is growing to 2 gigs in size, so I'm wanting to know just how much difference would the performace be with the below servers.
Here is the list.
a) Dual xeon 3.06 120GB sata RAID + backup drive, 2GB RAM.
b) Intel Dual Core Dual Xeon Woodcrest 5130 - 4 x 2.0GHz
-4 x 2.0GHz Processors
-2GB Ram
-250GB Hard Drive
c) DUAL CORE DUAL XEON Dempsey 3.46 Ghz
# 2 GB Ram
# 160 GB Sata hdd
Thanks for any advice I get, I will really appreciate this.
-
10-27-2006, 06:47 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Location
- PA, USA
- Posts
- 5,143
For colo or dedicated? If colo, besides performance, you may want to consider power usage. In which case, I will definitely go with Woodcrest 5130. However, if it's dedicated server, you don't care about power usage. In which case, Woodcrest 5130 and Demsey 3.46 Ghz may be comparable.
Fluid Hosting, LLC - Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure: Cloud Shared and Reseller, Cloud VPS, and Cloud Hybrid Server
-
10-27-2006, 08:11 PM #3Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 306
You may wish to get SCSI drives however. Speaking from a tough lesson getting SATA drives is a complete disaster on my forums.
-
10-27-2006, 11:18 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Oregon
- Posts
- 1,315
I would choose the Woodcrest 5130, the woodcrest are much better than the old xeon.
-
10-28-2006, 03:28 AM #5WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
Okay I'll confirm about what type of harddrive the woodcrest comes with asI got the best price for that one out of the dempsey.
It is for a dedicated server aswell.
As for raid and back up drives and all that what are your suggestions?
Also anyone know why they are comparable? because it confuses me with the 4x2.0GHZ isnt that like 8.0GHZ in total? wouldnt that kill the over processor lol, that is why im confused
-
10-28-2006, 07:34 PM #6WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
Okay just confirmed it is a sata.
What are other peoples opinion on having a sata harddrive for a fairly busy forums.
-
10-28-2006, 07:37 PM #7Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 3,499
SATA will most likely be fine. SCSI is best for intensive MySQL, but I don't think you will have a problem using SATA.
Alex
-
10-30-2006, 02:13 AM #8WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
Okay cool this is the set up I will have. What do you guys think.
Intel Dual Core Dual Xeon Woodcrest 5130 - 4 x 2.0GHz - 4 x2.0GHzProcessors 2x120 sata RAID0 - 2gb ram + backup drive.
cpanel/whm/fantastico/rvskins/whm Xtra/mod security/firewall/ and more.
10 IPS
Fully Managed - I've been with this hosting company for almost 6 months, I love their support.
Total: $300 per month.
What do you think of this set up for a busy forums. (I get around 200 online users at any time so it can be quite busy.)
-
10-30-2006, 06:14 AM #9Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Feb 2002
- Posts
- 336
Just out of interest, who are you hosted with as that seems a good price for fully managed?
TIA - Dav
-
11-02-2006, 03:00 AM #10WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
I'm hosted with http://www.hostforweb.com/ I have been what I would call a good customer for quite a while now. There advertised plans on their site are quite a lot more and the one I'm getting is not even listed. They ordered it in for me and did a special price for me. I don't know if they would do this for anyone else, when I started they wouldnt, but over time I got to know them quite well.
For me the support and managed hosing is what I needed so I was prepared to pay the extra for a server that would have been cheaper else where.
-
11-02-2006, 02:41 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 38
You got about the best set-up you're going to get.
RAID 0 basically combines the two drives into one, spreading the reads and writes over the pair so you get a nice speed bump because you can do two operations at once.
RAID 1 makes the second drive a mirror of the first, so while there's no speed bump, you get redundancy that allows you to recover quickly if one drive dies. Downside is you're only getting the usable space equal to one drive. 2 x 120 in RAID 0 = 240. 2 x 120 in RAID 1 = 120.
RAID 5 is something I'm still trying to understand. I know that the speed isn't very good and you get *some* parity that helps with data integrity, but not full mirroring. On the other hand, you don't sacrifice as much disk space. In a RAID 1 or RAID 10 array, 4 x 250 = 500. In a RAID 5 array 4 x 250 = 750.
RAID 10 is sort of the "best of both worlds" solution. It requires 4 drives, but you get the speed bump of RAID 0 and the mirroring of RAID 1, along with the 50% reduction in capacity. 4 x 250 in RAID 10 acts like 2 x 250 in a RAID 0 with maybe a small slowdown for the RAID 1 mirroring.
-
11-02-2006, 06:51 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 742
That's not a bad deal -- how much bandwidth are they throwing in on that? Our woodcrest clients are absolutely thrilled, and it uses a lot less power than some of our servers, even when we have 4 hds raided.
-
11-03-2006, 11:03 AM #13Disabled
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Zurich, Switzerland
- Posts
- 774
Woodcrest (option b) leaves the others face down in the dirt in every respect.
As for the RAID configuration, if you really mean 0, make them switch it to 1, as RAID 0 is a quick ticket to complete data wipe.
-
11-03-2006, 08:30 PM #14WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Australia, Brisbane
- Posts
- 147
Originally Posted by RambOrc
I am getting 2000 gigs of bandwidth per month on a 100mps pipe (if they are the correct terms.)
Server is almost set up, and the migration will be done straight after.
I will let everyone know how well this new server handles my forums.
Thanks for all the advice.
-
11-03-2006, 10:16 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2004
- Location
- Bay Area
- Posts
- 1,320
Originally Posted by gbulmash
-
11-19-2006, 06:37 PM #16Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Posts
- 63
Originally Posted by hornstar