Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:36:31 +0100 From: "Siegbert Baude" <Siegbert.Baude@gmx.de> To: "Zero Sum" <count@shalimar.net.au>, "Cosmos Boekell" <boekell@cs.uchicago.edu>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: server Message-ID: <00e301c05446$2b5f8ca0$4011a8c0@wohnheim.uniulm.de> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011211545440.5919-100000@embassy.cs.uchicago.edu> <00112213171207.05727@shalimar.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> AMD should be fine, but I would try and build a multi-processor box, even > if it means slower processors. It will likely perform better and the > difference may increase when a ouple of FreeBSD problems get solved. Could you please explain this further? AMD and multi-processor are mutually exclusive until now, so you´re speaking of Intel dual-processing (XEONs possible price-wise for the called 2000-2500$ in the US ?) vs. AMD single processor. In which cases would the SMP-machine perform better? > SCSI would be nice, but that is much more expensive. I'd say multiprocessor > would be more important. For a high hit rate, DSCSI is much better though. I think that very strongly depends on your estimated kind of load. Doing web-hosting with heavy cgi-scripting as main task, processor power and a lot of RAM will save your performance, but for NFS over high-speed network, your disk subsystem will be decisive. Ciao Siegbert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00e301c05446$2b5f8ca0$4011a8c0>