Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:48:17 +1100 From: Zero Sum <count@shalimar.net.au> To: "Siegbert Baude" <Siegbert.Baude@gmx.de>, "Cosmos Boekell" <boekell@cs.uchicago.edu>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: server Message-ID: <00112216481700.00531@shalimar.net.au> In-Reply-To: <00e301c05446$2b5f8ca0$4011a8c0@wohnheim.uniulm.de> References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011211545440.5919-100000@embassy.cs.uchicago.edu> <00112213171207.05727@shalimar.net.au> <00e301c05446$2b5f8ca0$4011a8c0@wohnheim.uniulm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 22 November 2000 16:36, Siegbert Baude wrote: > > AMD should be fine, but I would try and build a multi-processor box, even > > if it means slower processors. It will likely perform better and the > > difference may increase when a ouple of FreeBSD problems get solved. > > Could you please explain this further? AMD and multi-processor are mutually > exclusive until now, so you´re speaking of Intel dual-processing (XEONs > possible price-wise for the called 2000-2500$ in the US ?) vs. AMD single > processor. In which cases would the SMP-machine perform better? > Actually, I run twin Pentium II 350s -not AMD. (However, I had thought that multiprocessor AMDs were now viable). I have a phone line link, so max upstream is 33k. The CPUs are jammed at 100% by SETIs. Nevertheless, I get faster display of (the same web pages) than directly on my local network (at work). Basicly, the twin 350 works better (for me than our over engineered Sun) with a far poorer link. It seems that the more processors, the "smoother" FreeBSD runs. Less "jerky" waiting on a processor. I really hate it when my mouse goes out of control because another job started in the background (and system calls can't be interrupted) nut that sort of jerkiness goes away with more processors. I guess it is easier to find an appropriate time slot when there are (potentially) more of them. I won't buy faster processors uless I buy them in at least pairs. > > 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. Da! i was a bit ambivalent about this anyway.... -- count@shalimar.net.au Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione 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?00112216481700.00531>