Thanks Jan and Brock, a great help.
To answer your qn, Jan, no. If there are non-obvious tips about how to
do such an analysis quickly, I'd like to hear. We've just taken stock
of our current resources on the primary apache and mysql servers and
increased them for this proposed purchase, for a measure of future
proofing.
best,
George Herson
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jan Mulders <lastchancehotel@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 02-Jul-2007 18:23
> Subject: Re: [Xen-users] dual versus quad core
> To: Brock Palen <brockp@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Have you done any analysis of what you're going to be limited by? HDD
> space, performance? Memory? CPU? Are you running single-threaded apps
> (I presume not), or multi-threaded ones?
>
> I know you stated this is for a 'disaster recovery' system and
> therefore it working 100% first time, every time, but $11k is an awful
> lot for a dual quad-core server. We recently built a dual Xeon (quad
> core) machine with 32GB of RAM and ten 500GB disks for hosting virtual
> private servers for under $7k, and although it's taken us 2 days to
> build it and get Fedora/Xen installed, we saved about $10k compared to
> 'off the shelf' prices.
>
> In my experience, you'll be better off with the two Quad-cores (more
> total GHz to play with - 2.3GHz x 8 = 18.4GHz per box, compared to 4x
> 3GHz = 12GHz per box) - you're running multithreaded apps
> (Apache/MySQL) anyway, so it should be able to use the extra cores
> just fine.
>
> Xen will work just fine on the system(s) you've specced.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 02/07/07, Brock Palen <brockp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Cores are effectively cpus. Xen will use them just as it
> would a 4
> cpu machine. I noticed in 'xm info' it does keep track of
> cores, vs
> sockets, but I am not sure if it does anything with that
> information
> right now. In the worst case its like having 4 cpus, which
> as you
> pointed out is much cheaper this way (duel socket duel
> core) than
> with a 4 socket system.
>
> We do Super computing and allot of the new systems are duel
> core and
> we have users see them the same as cpus, because well on the
> silicon
> they are effectively.
>
> Brock Palen
> Center for Advanced Computing
> brockp@xxxxxxxxx
> (734)936-1985
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 3:39 PM, George Herson wrote:
>
> > Of the below, is the dual core or the quad core system more
> > cost-effective (everything else being equal)? This server's
> mission
> > will be to run backup (ie, in the event of a disaster) web
> and mysql
> > services separated by Xen.
> >
> > More generally, what are Xen's issues vis-a-vis cpu
> cores? Does/
> > will it
> > take good advantage of a quad core cpu? Dual core?
> >
> > (We confirmed that the IBM System x3550 is listed at
> > http://hcl.xensource.com/?showall=yes&subtab=systems as
> VT-capable and
> > Xen-tested.)
> >
> > (i'm not subscribed to the mailing list so pls include my
> address on
> > your email.)
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > system 1: dual core:
> > IBM System x3550 $10,663.25 with
> > Dual Core Intel Xeon 5160 3.0GHz 2x2MB L2 Cache Dual Core
> Processor
> > Addl Dual Core Intel Xeon 5160 3.0GHz 2x2MB L2 Cache Xeon
> > Processor
> >
> > system 2: quad core:
> > IBM System x3550 $11,049.15 with
> > Quad-Core Intel Xeon Proc E5345 (2.33GHz 8MB L2 1333MHz 80W)
> > Addl Quad-Core Intel Xeon Processor E5345 ( 2.33GHz 1333MHz
> 80w)
> >
> > best,
> > George Herson
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>
--
George Herson
Web and Reporting Manager
NYU College of Dentistry
Information Systems
433 1st Ave, BSB122
New York, NY 10010-2546
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home