• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Building Apache/PHP/MySQL web-server Which CPU?

phaxmohdem

phaxmohdem

Golden Member
Alrighty here is my little dilema, and I'm hoping someone here has some more advanced knowledge than I do on this subject so that I can make the best decision for my needs.

The Setup:
I am about ready to put a website online that will be used perhaps moderately at best in the near term. The site will use a lot of dynamic content from MySQL databases.

The Choice:
I know that MySQL and other web-databases like three things... Fast Disks, Fast RAM, and Cache RAM. which brings me to my decision to be made......... I have at my disposal an Athlon XP 2600+(266MHz FSB/256K L2 / 2133MHz) and an Athlon XP 2500+(333MHz FSB/512K L2 / 1.833MHz)

Which CPU would be best for my web-serving/database needs. I've been using that 2600+ for years, and it has yet to dissapoint, but I've never run a public web-server/mySQL setup on it.

Any wisdom? Will the added memory bandwidth and extra cache of the 2500+ make up for the 300MHz Difference in clock speed?
 
OC the 2500 to 200 fsb, and they will be almost the same speed. Easiest OC ever, but sometimes you only get to 190 fsb or so (like mine). Still plenty fast.
 
I don't want to OC the CPU as stbility will be #1 priority over raw speed... Just trying to decide If I will notive any sort of difference depending on what CPU route I choose, to go, or if the two chips are so closely matched that it makes no difference whatsoever.
 
usually the faster out of the two processors with regards to the two you have mentioned, would be the more favourable, as when running SQL you are running loads of calculations to and throw from memory all of the time, you need a processor that is going to crunch more numbers (small amounts) at a faster pace. I don?t think the L2 cache is to important (the difference between the two proc?s that is), because the processor is going to be more hungry for the amount of RAM available.

I think you might be more inclined to use the processor with the higher speed for this task .. but it is close seeing that the faster proc has a reduced memory bandwidth, although i don?t think memory bandwidth is as favourable to a higher clocked proc, being that the bandwidth available is mostly going to be used for the memory anyway so there will not be as much of a bottleneck.

I don?t think it would be a good idea to OC, as when running a database, you will want 100% stability, and when OCing you might find that you have corrupt sectors on the HDD, and that is a loss of data integrity, and also this will not be fixable after HDD sectors become corrupt.
 
Thanks for the comments RichUK... That is what I was digging for... However I think that I'm going to use the 2500+ for the time being, (For reasons of less heat created in the case) and see if it can handle the load. I think the extra memory bandwidth, coupled with 1GB of DDR333 Should be sufficient to negate most of the clock speed difference.. At least I hope so! The database won't be huge, just hit upon frequently.... and 1GB of RAM should be more than enough to cache the whole DB if need be. I'm trying to do this on the cheap with parts that I just have handy... so that sort of limits my options a tad.
 
Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
Thanks for the comments RichUK... That is what I was digging for... However I think that I'm going to use the 2500+ for the time being, (For reasons of less heat created in the case) and see if it can handle the load. I think the extra memory bandwidth, coupled with 1GB of DDR333 Should be sufficient to negate most of the clock speed difference.. At least I hope so! The database won't be huge, just hit upon frequently.... and 1GB of RAM should be more than enough to cache the whole DB if need be. I'm trying to do this on the cheap with parts that I just have handy... so that sort of limits my options a tad.
Click to expand...


I think you have perfectly justified the reason for going with the 2500+, as the database is going to be accessed infrequently, so its not as if your going to have like 10 clients concurrently querying and writing to the database, so it should be fine either way. i take it you are going to be using ASP as the front end, and SQL server as your web app's back end.
 
Originally posted by: RichUK

I take it you are going to be using ASP as the front end, and SQL server as your web app's back end.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm going with PHP as the front ending scripting language of choice, connecting to a MySQL DB. I've not yet ventured into the crazy realm of ASP 🙂
 
Originally posted by: phaxmohdem
Originally posted by: RichUK

I take it you are going to be using ASP as the front end, and SQL server as your web app's back end.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm going with PHP as the front ending scripting language of choice, connecting to a MySQL DB. I've not yet ventured into the crazy realm of ASP 🙂
Click to expand...

cool, you'll find that if you want to get into that sort of thing, you will end up using ASP in the future as it is more commonly used (or you might not), it really isn't that hard if you are familiar with PHP it will come naturally, just got to learn the language .. but anyways.. good luck on setting up your SQL server 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top