Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:25:29 -0800 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@urx.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: jbiquez@icsmx.com, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: advice with old equipment. Message-ID: <3A381379.9F464204@urx.com> References: <14904.1150.593498.981432@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > > Kent Stewart <kstewart@urx.com> types: > > Jorge Biquez wrote: > > > 1 Pentium PRO DOUBLE Processor 200 Mhz. 256 RAM.2 Disks of 4 GB each one. > > > 1 Pentium II 350 Mhz. 128 RAM. 2 Disks of 4 GB each one. > > > My question is. What would be your advice on which machine will perform > > > better with FreeBSD? and Why? > > Well, it depends on the P-II 350. If you have one with PC-100 memory, > > it can out perform the dual machine by 50% because of the memory > > bandwidth. The rule of 1.8 times the cpu speed for duals would have > > the PPro only out performing a P-II 350 with PC-66 memory. If you need > > parallel processes, then the dual machine can be faster but I can't > > guess when. > > Unless I've been misinformed, the PIIs internal cache is only half > speed, wherease the PPro is full speed. So for memory access that are > cache hits, the PPro will give you 200MHz speed, but the PII will only > get 175MHz. So, from a cache standpoint it would be an advantage with the PPro. One of the effects I see with the Celeron and P-II & III's is that Setiathome runs about 1.5 times faster on the non-Celeron cpu's because of the memory. A Celeron is also a full-speed cache. I also thought that the PPro's memory would only be PC-66. So the end comparison could be all over the place depending on what you are doing. A buildworld on the Celeron 433 is a little bit faster than a buildworld on a Abit BX6 rev 2 with a P-II 400. The Abit board is about 10% slower than a SuperMicro with the same speed cpu. Never have figured that one out. > > I've been told by reliable people that the PPro's benchmark at 190% of > the speed of PIIs at same clockrate because of this. This implies that > the cache hit rate is pretty high for the application in question, > though. I'll add this to my trivia database for benchmarking. Kent > > > I think a lot of people have webservers on older system. I think > > either would be adequate unless your have a lot of cgi and then you > > never have a fast enough cpu? The older one with 256MB does have an > > advantage because when you start swapping. The effective memory speed > > drops more than a factor of 2 or so. I usually tell people that it is > > 10ns vs 10ms but that isn't always a realworld fact. > > Yup - disk through put is the crucial issue for a web server that's > not building most of it's pages on the fly. In that case, the system > clock - not the cpu clock - is what will matter. > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ > Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant, email for more information. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ 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?3A381379.9F464204>