From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Nov 21 21:36:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (sirius-giga.rz.uni-ulm.de [134.60.241.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB62337B4C5 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lilith (lilith.wohnheim.uni-ulm.de [134.60.106.64]) by mail.rz.uni-ulm.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA01936; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:36:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00e301c05446$2b5f8ca0$4011a8c0@wohnheim.uniulm.de> From: "Siegbert Baude" To: "Zero Sum" , "Cosmos Boekell" , References: <00112213171207.05727@shalimar.net.au> Subject: Re: server Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:36:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > AMD should be fine, but I would try and build a multi-processor box, even > if it means slower processors. It will likely perform better and the > difference may increase when a ouple of FreeBSD problems get solved. Could you please explain this further? AMD and multi-processor are mutually exclusive until now, so you´re speaking of Intel dual-processing (XEONs possible price-wise for the called 2000-2500$ 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