• 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.

E8400 vs Q9450 for File Server

A

abakshi

Junior Member
I'm building a new file server to replace my current P4 3.0C box and was wondering which would be better for a file server:

E8400 (2 x 3.0 GHz / 1333 MHz / 6 MB L2) - $189
Q9450 (4 x 2.6 GHz / 1333 MHz / 12 MB L2) - $300?

I know the quad core would normally be an automatic choice for a server, but our usage patterns are such that the server usually doesn't have too many concurrent connections.

So I'll have maybe 10 users working on Word docs or streaming music or other small things, but usually only one big file transfer (like a 250 GB backup over the network or something) at a time.

Would the quad-core still be faster even if there's only one big file transfer being performed?

Also, for the mobo, would X38 be any faster than P35? And what's the deal with DDR2-800 and the 1333 bus as far as needing to OC to optimally use the bus?
 
First the basic bus explanation.

Intel doesn't report the actual FSB frequency of its processors, they use the number of transfers per second. Intel's FSB is quad-pumped, meaning that data is transfered four times per clock cycle. As such, a 1333 "FSB" CPU, is actually only running on a FSB frequency of 333MHz. DDR and DDR2 RAM are double-pumped, meaning they handle two things per clock cycle. So when you see RAM listed as DDR2-800, it's rated to run at a FSB of 400MHz.

In other words, choosing RAM to match a 1333FSB processor means buying DDR2-667. However, since there's only a minimal price difference between DDR2-667 and DDR2-800, most people just opt for the 800 and call it a day. There's nothing wrong with doing this.

X38 is not going to offer any noticable performance increase. The main benefits of X38 (allowing full Crossfire support and somewhat better overclocking than the P35) are not going to be apparent to you.
 
For just a file server? You could run one with a Celeron 440, honestly.
The biggest factor is IO performance, not CPU performance.
 
Well my current box is a P4 3.0C / Intel 865PE / 1 GB DDR400 / Promise PCI SATA RAID controller / 2 x 320 GB/7200/16 in RAID1.

So you're saying if I were to just add two more drives and set up RAID 0+1 on the same setup, that would make more of a difference than building a new system with a C2D E8400 / P35 / 4 GB DDR2-800 / Intel Matrix RAID or PCI-Express RAID controller with similar drives in RAID1, because the hard drive throughput increase would outweigh everything else?
 
Originally posted by: abakshi
Well my current box is a P4 3.0C / Intel 865PE / 1 GB DDR400 / Promise PCI SATA RAID controller / 2 x 320 GB/7200/16 in RAID1.

So you're saying if I were to just add two more drives and set up RAID 0+1 on the same setup, that would make more of a difference than building a new system with a C2D E8400 / P35 / 4 GB DDR2-800 / Intel Matrix RAID or PCI-Express RAID controller with similar drives in RAID1, because the hard drive throughput increase would outweigh everything else?
Click to expand...




well...

what i think most people are saying here, is that serving files really doesnt take much cpu power.

you could probably run a machine on a pentium 3 500 or something and as long as the disks were fast it would be fine for serving files.



a pci based raid controller is probabably one of the worst ideas out there. the PCI bus MAX can sustain 133 MBPS and thats shared for all cards on the bus.

sata 150 is 150 MBPS max, and sata 300 is 300 MBPS.

that said, a raid on a PCI card is stupid for striping. some newer drives can already put out like 180 MBPS alone on the outer tracks. (i think the newer 250 gb plattter drives like the 7200.11 seagate series especially).


you really should just buy a new motherboard with a cheap CPU. use the onboard controller, or a pci-e x4 based one so that you wont be bottle necked by PCI bus for raid 0 and do a raid 0+1. depending on how old those 320gb drives are you might want to just buy all new drives.

perhaps get 4 new 7200.11 seagate 500gb drivses and raid 0+1. or do a raid 5 if you wanna buy a hardware raid controller. if you really want to get serious get a raid controller with a ram cache.

the cpu doesnt matter, you could use pretty much any CPU that fits in LGA 775 and it would be fine. even a via c7 or something would probably handle it fine.
 
Hold on a sec. Define streaming music? Will your ten users also be streaming audio from this server? Are you going to run media server?

And secondly, why are you upgrading at all? Is there a problem with your current server that you are not mentioning? Is it not performing satisfactorily?

I'm asking these questions because, if you're upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, that's pointless. If you truly have a need to upgrade, tell us why? What is lacking.... etc. etc.

I have 4 year old server running Win2k Server, on a Celeron 2.6 and 1GB of ram. It serves files, hosts a web site, FTP site, backup exec, I even run terminal sessions on it. I do think about upgrading it once in a while, but then I think, "Why should I spend money needlessly?".

Anyway, what's your story with your server. What can it not do.??

Keys
 
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Hold on a sec. Define streaming music? Will your ten users also be streaming audio from this server? Are you going to run media server?

And secondly, why are you upgrading at all? Is there a problem with your current server that you are not mentioning? Is it not performing satisfactorily?

I'm asking these questions because, if you're upgrading just for the sake of upgrading, that's pointless. If you truly have a need to upgrade, tell us why? What is lacking.... etc. etc.

I have 4 year old server running Win2k Server, on a Celeron 2.6 and 1GB of ram. It serves files, hosts a web site, FTP site, backup exec, I even run terminal sessions on it. I do think about upgrading it once in a while, but then I think, "Why should I spend money needlessly?".

Anyway, what's your story with your server. What can it not do.??

Keys
Click to expand...

QFT
 
If you *have* to upgrade the server, don't get anything more than a Pentium Dual Core for the CPU.. but don't get a single-core CPU either.

Servers should never be single-core if you're upgrading them or building/buying a new one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top