Need Opinion on Cheap Serv Sys for Linux

[GoodRevrnd]

I'm gonna be building a cheap linux box out of used parts that will perform some light webserver, mailserver, ftp server, and fserv duties on Debian, as well as whatever other fun linuxy things I feel like doing. What sort of processor should I put in this thing? It'll probably be in the 400-900mhz range, but should I go w/ a celeron, duron, p3, or athlon? How big a hit would I take from going the celeron/duron route? How much faster would the p3 be than the athlon? Are there any other hardware compatibility issues I should take into account when building the sys?

 

[Nothinman]

I doubt you'll notice a difference no matter what you pick, the bottlenecks will probably more than likely be either the network or disk.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

What about performance in linux itself?

 

[Nothinman]

In general the only really CPU intensive things are things like compiling, MP3 encoding, etc. Most daily uses aren't CPU bound. Webserver stuff may be if there's a lot of scripting or if you decide to use a database for the webpage.

I personally would use an Athlon, they're plenty cheap and fast. And 400-900 is a pretty wide range =)

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

are you gonna use X and surf/etc on it? if so, then cpu can make a difference, although even a 400 would be fine.

my p233 is ok for surfing, although it does tax the cpu alot and its kinda slow. i'm patient enough that its not really that annoying, i can deal with it, but when i get back on my duron 750 machine i feel like i'm on a rocket ship or something

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Probably won't be surfing on it, probably will eventually run databases on it, though.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Probably won't be surfing on it, probably will eventually run databases on it, though. >>



Go with a cheap athlon (XP 1600+ or less) and get scsi drives. No reason to use IDE.

 

[DaHitman]

<< Probably won't be surfing on it, probably will eventually run databases on it, though. >>



Databases are usually MEMORY bound... In some cases, you will find that a slower system that has more memory will out perform a faster system that has less..

 

[Armitage]

<<

<< Probably won't be surfing on it, probably will eventually run databases on it, though. >>



Databases are usually MEMORY bound... In some cases, you will find that a slower system that has more memory will out perform a faster system that has less.. >>



Yea, if you're serious about running a database on it, you might save some on the CPU, but load up on memory and faster disks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<

<< Probably won't be surfing on it, probably will eventually run databases on it, though. >>



Databases are usually MEMORY bound... In some cases, you will find that a slower system that has more memory will out perform a faster system that has less.. >>



Yea, if you're serious about running a database on it, you might save some on the CPU, but load up on memory and faster disks. >>



The scripts used to access databases take up their share of CPU, but the less cpu more memory (scsi disksa re a requirement if you want to be taken seriously) train of thought applies to almost every situation.

 

[freebsddude]

<< I doubt you'll notice a difference no matter what you pick, the bottlenecks will probably more than likely be either the network or disk. >>



Agree 110%, actually your CPU may become a bottleneck if you use IDE. In general, SCSI drives will free up your CPU for other processing and also to take on additional traffic/load. SCSI controllers generally tend to lessen the burden on CPU for I/O type of processing. CPU will initiate I/O and SCSI controller will take over.

Basically a CPU does not have to babysit an I/O process with a SCSI setup. To give you some idea, we were supporting about 50+ pop email users on an IDE FreeBSD system. We upgraded to Adaptec 2940UW Ultra SCSI controller with a 18GB SCSI (Seagate Cheetah drive 10K, 5ms), while keeping the same (PII 350) CPU. The performance gain was significant, end-users noticed their emails coming across much quicker.

I have never used an AMD but the ECS K7S5A seems like a good buy since it supports the full line of AMD XP processors, thereby giving you the ability to upgrade your CPU down the road.

Just my $0.02.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Keep in mind I'm trying to keep this reasonably inexpensive...
At this point I'm leaning towards an older Athlon 800 or so. Maybe I can use the SCSI drives for the web, mailserver, db files in the 4-10 gb range and get a huge IDE drive for my file serving purposes? So the larger cache of the P3 wouldn't be a bigger benefit than an Athlon?

 

[jhu]

how much traffic do you expect to get?

 

[rahvin]

I serioulsy doubt he's gonna have a pipe big enough to use any kind of CPU bandwidth. Personlly if you are going to have the server on 24/7/365 I would put an intel chip in it for heat/noise reasons.

 

[freebsddude]

<< Keep in mind I'm trying to keep this reasonably inexpensive...
At this point I'm leaning towards an older Athlon 800 or so. Maybe I can use the SCSI drives for the web, mailserver, db files in the 4-10 gb range and get a huge IDE drive for my file serving purposes? So the larger cache of the P3 wouldn't be a bigger benefit than an Athlon? >>



I would probably invest in a SCSI controller card as #1 on my list and then, as you say, buy drives as appropriate.
Check out this one type of a Tekram SCSI card.