Results 1 to 25 of 25
Thread: Which server is better?
-
11-20-2006, 11:26 AM #1WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Which server is better?
Server 1
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz
stepping : 9
cpu MHz : 2393.953
cache size : 512 KB
This server is a Dual Xeon 2.4Ghz
2GB Ram
2 X 160GB HDD (IDE)
===========================================
Server 2
Intel Xeon 3.0Ghz (64 bit) 1MB
Tyan Tiger Barebone Chasis 5350 Server Board
1GB ECC RAM
2 x SATA 80GB
============================================
Which is better and faster?
-
11-20-2006, 11:34 AM #2Newbie
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12
what are you going to be using it for?
-
11-20-2006, 12:08 PM #3WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Hi,
i will be mainly running web hosting, along side will be JSP. Linux box. which would u recommend?
-
11-20-2006, 12:11 PM #4Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Tampa, Florida
- Posts
- 30
I would recommend server 1 Dual CPU's, twice the Ram and 4 times the disk space. If price is not the issue this server will give you more room to grow before upgrading.
IPGHosting.com Shared Hosting, Dedicated Servers, and Streaming Services.
24x7 Support
-
11-20-2006, 12:14 PM #5WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Will it really affect much that Server 1 is 512K cache while Server 2 is 1MB and Server 2 is 64 bits while Server 1 is not.
-
11-20-2006, 12:18 PM #6Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Tampa, Florida
- Posts
- 30
With server 1 each CPU will have 512k cache but you have the advantage of 2 CPU's for processing power to cut the work load in half. Server 2 has 1 MB of cache but is limited to a single core and if the application is not 64 bit you gain no advantage.
IPGHosting.com Shared Hosting, Dedicated Servers, and Streaming Services.
24x7 Support
-
11-20-2006, 03:56 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 1,355
Server1
ServerTag Technologies - Everything you need for hosting activity
A Canadian company providing top notch site hosting, servers and colocation services
-
11-21-2006, 03:25 AM #8WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Comparing the hard disk speed, server 1 is both IDE while server 2 is both SATA.
Will that affect much? I would required lots of read + write expecting because this is a web-hosting server, more over will be running JSP. which is kinda of intensive in the rotational of the hard disk.
-
11-21-2006, 04:16 AM #9Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Southern California
- Posts
- 179
Realistically high traffic web servers will just die with single hard drives, whether it be ATA or SATA.
I think by the time you can no longer deal with ATA, you will be seeking a RAID anyways.
Server #1
-
11-21-2006, 05:15 AM #10Newbie
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Delhi , INDIA.
- Posts
- 15
IMHO, 2 cpu's @ 2.4Ghz are 99% times better than one CPU @ umm.. even 5 Ghz.. no ?
Regards.
-
11-21-2006, 05:21 AM #11The Linux Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- /root
- Posts
- 23,990
Originally Posted by ashagg
Correct.
Net
Specially 4 U
Reseller Hosting: Boost Your Websites | Fully Managed KVM VPS: 3.20 - 5.00 Ghz, Pure Dedicated Power
JoneSolutions.Com is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions, server management and services since 2001
Debian|Ubuntu|cPanel|DirectAdmin|Enhance|Webuzo|Acronis|Estela|BitNinja|Nginx
-
11-22-2006, 12:09 AM #12WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
What if now we change to this.
Server 1
AMD Opteron 246
1GB Ram
2 X 73GB SCSI HDD (RAID 1)
Server 2
Intel Xeon 3.0Ghz (64 Bits)
1GB Ram
2 X 80GB Sata
For now, what do you think?
-
11-22-2006, 12:34 AM #13Newbie
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 12
Where i hate SCSI drives - i've found AMD to be better performance in proccessing hands down.
I'd go with 1
-
11-22-2006, 12:43 AM #14Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- New York, NY
- Posts
- 10,710
Where i hate SCSI drivesMediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business
-
11-22-2006, 12:50 AM #15Newbie
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 12
Originally Posted by layer0
Of course there is MANY factors to that... but it has still been my experiance that SATA > SCSI
-
11-22-2006, 12:51 AM #16WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Where I know that AMD Opteron 246 is running on a frequency of 2.0Ghz while the Intel Xeon is running on 3.0Ghz, which one will have a better benchmark?
Comparing that I will have high I/O on the Disk and the processing power for using many requests to mySQL.
-
11-22-2006, 01:39 AM #17Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 5,105
Originally Posted by Aybra
Chances are that if you bought a s erver with SCSI last year and one with SATA2, the sata drives were probably new and the scsi ones not. I honestly believe your experience to be anecdotal. Now if one wants to tout the merits of SATA on a price / performance that is an argument that I see some merit in but certainly not reliability. Note, I am not saying that Sata wins but I concede the argument that it could.CloudNexus Technology Services
Managed Services
-
11-22-2006, 04:56 AM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,405
Originally Posted by miltongohTommy Tran - tommy @ vinax.net ::: VINAX, LLC ::: http://vinax.net ::: Since 2004
Premium Dedicated Servers and Colocation in downtown Chicago (350 E. Cermak Rd)
Premium Bandwidth, 100% Network & Power Uptime SLA, 24/7 Prompt Tech Support
-
11-22-2006, 08:24 AM #19Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Tampa, Florida
- Posts
- 30
Server 1 by far SCSI mirror over 2 non raid sata drives.
IPGHosting.com Shared Hosting, Dedicated Servers, and Streaming Services.
24x7 Support
-
11-22-2006, 07:56 PM #20Disabled
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 651
Server 1
Intel are crap, and SCSI is far better :-)
-
11-22-2006, 11:21 PM #21WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Comparing the speed wise for the processing power. Which one is better?
-
11-22-2006, 11:34 PM #22Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Boise, ID
- Posts
- 2,453
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p=2
That is dual 2.8ghz intel compared to dual opteron 248.
Intel 64 Bit didn't work well in the 3.0ghz xeons, so forget comparing that.
As for the comparison of speed, the 246 x 2 is going to be faster. For drive speed its going to be faster also.
-
11-24-2006, 12:19 AM #23WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Originally Posted by XanaduServers
-
11-24-2006, 12:41 AM #24Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- Boise, ID
- Posts
- 2,453
Originally Posted by miltongoh
-
11-24-2006, 04:35 AM #25WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Singapore
- Posts
- 149
Originally Posted by XanaduServers