CPU Suggestion: SMP or Not (Server)

[DreamKaZz]

I would like to have the opinion on what i should do.
I'm currently running a Windows 2000 server (DHCP, AD, PDC, Print, DNS, File service running) on a Celeron 633@800 MHz with 192 Sdram (and soon another 128)
So running all those services is taking alot on my cpu so running all those services and exchange on a Dual 366@550 MHz spreading the process on 2 cpus would it be better? I'll be running this setup for educational use with 5 to 10 users.
Would i be getting the same performance as with my 800mhz?

Thanks

 

[DreamKaZz]

help

 

[kranky]

The three places you usually run into bottlenecks in a server are the CPU, memory, and disk I/O. It won't help to go dual CPU if you end up putting more strain on an overloaded disk subsystem. Is your CPU 100% busy now continuously or do you just get an occasional peak 100%? Is RAM a problem? Do the disk LEDs show you have constant disk activity?

You need to look at all three to make sure you don't solve one problem and create another one. But assuming that you have no disk or RAM problem, I think the dual CPU setup would be better, but it won't be a tremendous difference.

 

[BadThad]

^ kranky strikes again with good advice!

 

[Escalade]

<< The three places you usually run into bottlenecks in a server are the CPU, memory, and disk I/O >>


Almost ways the order is...
1) Disk I/O
2) Memory
3) CPU

Very seldom is the bottleneck at the CPU, the hard drive is the slowest point in *any* system, thus increasing RAM (used as a disk cache) will usually result in better performance (provided you're dealing with repetative type accesses).

 

[Shuxclams]

Always go for RAM, dual only helps with SMP capable programs. Disk I/O is a second concern, try a RAID 1, 5, or 10 with fast drives and lots of memory and you will see better performance.









SHUX

 

[Sunner]

I agree with Kranky.
In my experience, its far more usual that the bottleneck is either main memory or disk system, rather than the CPU for the kind of stuff you described.

An example would be an Exchange server that I have the displeasure of administrating.
It's rather small, only serving between 50-100 people, and its CPU is, on avarge, roughly 5% loaded withe occasional 25% peak, and its only a P3-500 non Xeon.