Programming Performance: What is the best hardware?

[zodd24]

Hi all,

What hardware will get me the best possible increase in performance in terms of programming? I see lots of tests for gaming and encoding, but none for programming.

Specifically, I want these things to run as fast as possible in this order:

application server: decreasing startup time for an application server
clean, compile & deploy: deleting, compiling and copying files
IDE - integrated development environment: smoother performance in general for Eclipse

Additional Questions?
1. I bought a 2.8GHz 400 SC about a year ago. How come single core 2.8GHz machines cost more now?! It doesn't seem like the performance is any better.
2. How much will a 10k hard drive improve compile times / app server startup times compared to a 7.2k hard drive?
3. Does a 300GB hard drive offer better performance than a 80GB hard drive (same specs)? Why?
4. How much "stuff" is required to fill 1GB of RAM? What type of things get copied into RAM? Just applications? It seems like when I copy files from one place to another, it is getting copied into RAM when I look at system performance. Did I just interpret this incorrectly?

Lots of questions, so thanks in advance!

 

[mikester]

We use Websphere Studio (based on eclipse) and I noticed a substantial performance increase when I upgraded to a dual-core processor. With all the different processes running - app server, IDE, database server, etc. - you really benefit from having 2 processors available. At home I have an Athlon X2 3800+ and at work I have a Pentium D 830, both with 2 GB of RAM, and both environments are awesome for development.

To answer your additional questions:

1. No clue- I really only deal with AMD chips

2. On my work machine I have a 10k rpm Raptor drive, and at home I have dual 7200 rpm drives in a RAID array. I don't notice any difference in performance, and the two 80g 7200rpm drives were less money than the single raptor. Also, the raptor is loud as heck - even distracting sometimes. If you can afford dual raptors in RAID, then go for it, but for best bang/buck, get a pair of cheaper drives over a single raptor.

3. I think larger harddrives do offer better performance in a lot of cases (although it can varies, i.e. a 74GB raptor can perform better than a 300g drive in most cases, but that's more of an exception). One big reason is that drives can read data from the inner tracks much more quickly than they can from the outer tracks. If you store 80GB of data on an 80GB drive, a lot of your data is going to be on those outside tracks and accessed more slowly. If you put that same 80GB of data on a 300GB drive, then most of the data will be on the quicker inside tracks, so it will perform more quickly. That's why it's always a good idea to buy a lot bigger drive than you think you need - a full drive is a slow drive.

4. That's a hard question to answer, because RAM is used for many different things. The bottom line is - the more the better. It is very unlikely that you will run out of memory no matter how much you have, because the OS will just create more virtual memory on the harddrive. Of course, this memory is accessed 100x slower than real memory, so what you notice with too little memory is poor performance.

For the type of work you are doing, you want 1GB minimum. IDEs and app servers are huge memory hogs, so the more the better. We use 1GB minimum on all our developer machines (Websphere Studio just will not run well at all with 512 MB), and 2GB is nice if you can afford it.

 

[zodd24]

Interesting, from the tech articles I read, I was beginning to think that there would only be a small performance increase if I switched to dual core. (The main programs I use are Eclipse, an app server and MySQL for the database.)

1. Anybody know why 2.8GHz machines are more expensive now than they were a year ago? It seems as if the performance is about the same as my 400SC.

2. You mean RAID 0 right? Is RAID 0 really comparable to a 10k? I do like best bang for buck. How much faster is a RAID 0 compared to a non-RAID setup? 20% faster?

3. Thanks for the info.

4. If I had 2GB of RAM, would I still use virtual memory? I read that at a certain point, you stop using virutal memory completely. Is this true? (i.e. if I used an app server, IDE, etc.)

And thanks for the informative reply!

 

[mikester]

2. You mean RAID 0 right? Is RAID 0 really comparable to a 10k? I do like best bang for buck. How much faster is a RAID 0 compared to a non-RAID setup? 20% faster?

Actually, I'm running a RAID 1 array now - I used to run RAID 0. I haven't noticed any difference either way. The consensus seems to be that there really isn't much of a performance increase running RAID 1 over a single drive (and similarly, very little of a performance hit runnint RAID 0). I've tried all the different configurations at home, and it seems to me like RAID 1 > RAID 0 > single drive performance wise. The machine just seems to lag more when doing HD operations with a single drive. The raptor improves this situation, as my single drive at work seems as responsive as my RAID array at home.

I think bottom line is - it doesn't make a substantial difference one way or another. Given the negligible differences in performance, I would rather have 2 80GB drives that cost me $50/each in a RAID 1 array with some redundancy than a single Raptor that goes for $160. I actually run a pair of RAID 1 arrays in my system - a pair of 80GB SATA drives for my OS and apps, and a pair of 80B IDE drives for my data (ripped from my previous machine). I also have a 250GB SATA drive I use for video editing.

4. If I had 2GB of RAM, would I still use virtual memory? I read that at a certain point, you stop using virutal memory completely. Is this true? (i.e. if I used an app server, IDE, etc.)

I don't think the OS ever stops using virtual memory completely - there are some things it will try to page out no matter how much RAM you have. But it will be substantially reduced with more RAM. I just recently upgraded from 1GB to 2GB and the difference is noticeable, but not nearly as much as the difference from 512MB to 1GB was. That's why I said 1GB minimum - I think that's kind of the sweet spot right now, with 2GB being a little better, but you're starting to reach a point of diminishing returns.