Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Colocation and Data Centers : P4 2.2GHZ / 400 MHz FSB / 4GB RAM / U160 - how good is it today?

P4 2.2GHZ / 400 MHz FSB / 4GB RAM / U160 - how good is it today?

I need an opinion on how good would be this server to host an entry level database website. Unfortunately I have no access to stats to estimate the load but my pure guess would be up to 25 users a day querying a MySQL database containing 0.5 million records. Results are presented in a way similar to ebay with no pictures only text.
Single P4 2.2GHz / 400MHz FSB
4GB ECC RAM
U160 SCSI Ctrl, 2 x 10K RPM HDD
Thank you,
1679.
PS: Currently website is on shared hosting but will soon be migrated to dedicated machine of similar spec to above (colocation) so nothing else will run on this server.





Last edited by 1679 : 12-22-2008 at 01:10 PM.

[FastServ]

The specs should be OK for your application but I would be more concerned about the age of the hardware -- reaching it's reliability limit IMO.





__________________Fast Serv Networks LLCAshburn VA (East Coast) and San Diego CA (West Coast) | Dedicated / Colo / XenServer / Streaming MediaDedicated, high bandwidth solutions, live from AS29889

Thanks FastServ. The server is brand new sealed old stock. Thought to give it a go.

[john2k]

There was a point in time when those types of servers were considered very good and they were used for hosting at least entry level type database sites as you described. I would imagine that they would work fine for your site as long as all 25 daily visitors aren't hammering the site/db simultaneously. Even then it might be fine, I'm not really sure. I recall back then that with those spec servers many people were putting the db on a secondary hard drive with everything else on the primary hard drive, to help speed up the db (that was back when most dedicated hosting companies weren't offering RAID options at an affordable price).
Anyhow, I think what you might want to consider is whether or not to go with a VPS. These days, on the right host server, you could probably get a fairly inexpensive VPS that is much more powerful than the server you're considering to colocate. Going with a VPS also has other benefits as well regarding control panel reboots, easy reinstalls if you need them, etc.





__________________
Domains For Sale: ServerHardening.com (Send PM if interested.)
Visit: HTML Help Central (htmlhelpcentral.com) <<<<< Advertising Opportunities

[Sekweta]

Until 2 months ago, we still ran the bulk of our web and ecommerce sites on P4/2.8 and P4/3.0 machines. The back-end database servers were also P4/3.0.
I can't name names of the shopping sites, but they're global brands and the web stores do multi-million dollar annual sales.
We upgraded away from the P4 platform only because the equipment was a few years old, as proactive/preventative maintenance, not because of any performance issues. I'm still running a group of P4/2.4 machines at another location for backup services and bulk storage and am totally satisfied with their stability and performance. The P4 is a gem, an old mule that just works and works, and never complains.
Unless you abuse your server, you will likely be quite pleased with the performance of the P4.

[Rageki-John]

That server should run perfectly fine. However, I don't think it would be able to handle an intense website. A regular one should be fine though. It would definitely be a plus though if that CPU had Hyper-Threading.





__________________Rageki Web Hosting Solutions - Canada

[GovoNet]

This spec is perfectly run at entry level server. But the harddisk better run at RAID1.

Great response guys, thanks everyone!

[WebDevourer]

When I first started colocating a server, I had a P3 1000mhz, 512mb ram and 20gb IDE hd in RAID-1. We ran 3 vbulletin boards with about 100 concurrent users total and never had problems. Your server is more than enough for 25 users. I bet I could handle all this setup with my P3-450!

[Sekweta]

Agreed, even the P3 is a good mule. Until mid-2008, our www1 server (runs our own company websites, no customer sites) was a P3/700 at 512MB RAM with a pair of 9GB SCSI disks. Even coping with a lot of ColdFusion scripting, it held up exceptionally well.
It was replaced ONLY because it was old and dusty, online continuously for 8 years. Even the disks were the originals. (you just can't kill Seagage SCSI disks)

[Hosttoast]

makes me feel good about the computer I bought last december. I figure it should last for quite a long time (except maybe having to enlarge the hard drives)
sounds really good to hear all this.

[LuisMi]

Hi all, for server hardware running 24h, what do you consider is the reasonable live of those systems? maybe four or five years?
Are cpu/case fans changed on regular basics? or only when it fails?
Regards.

[Sekweta]

Quote:



Originally Posted by Hosttoast


makes me feel good about the computer I bought last december. I figure it should last for quite a long time (except maybe having to enlarge the hard drives)
sounds really good to hear all this.


It's easy to lose perspective. We buy bigger, faster computers at home because software (primarily gamers) and multimedia drive the need.
For webhosting, the need for more speed isn't nearly as dramatic. ASP, perl, php, python, et al, have been around for many years, and ran just fine on the old Pentium Pro, P2 and P3 machines.
For some fun nostalgia, take a look at Pair Network's support status page from 1996 and notice the equipment discussed. http://www.pair.com/support/notices/1996.html I had a couple personal sites with them, and my CGI scripts ran great on the server I was hosted on. (Pentium-120 with 64 MB RAM)
I have direct knowledge of a local webhost who still has a few P3/500 and P3/600 servers in public service. As I typed this I browsed to a couple sites I know to be still hosted on them, and load times are quite speedy. (mostly static HTML)
Would I use these in my own business? No. But unless you're hosting sites that use scripting and database calls extensively, you just don't need ultra fast servers. Serving static HTML and pages with a wee bit of CGI will do great on older equipment. The concern is primarily the reliability due to the age/condition of the server itself.