The MYTH of GHZ.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Speed seems to mean very little nowadays.

check this out. I have 3 clients. 1 on a dual P3 1 ghz server, 1 on a single P4 1.6 ghz server and 1 on a Xeon P3 550 mhz 1mb cache server. which one do you think runs the fastest w/ multiple terminal services clients logged in??

the Fastest is the XEON. the P3 is in the mid and the P4 SUX BIG TIME. I mean that p4 slows to a crawl with even 1 terminal services client logged in. the xeon can handle 5 or 6 clients NO PROBLEM.

they all have pretty decent scsi disk subsystems, w/ the xeon having the slowest.
 
A

Alphathree33

Platinum Member
Dec 1, 2000
2,419
0
0
Xeon processors are designed for that environment... though I'll never understand how having a huge cache makes them that much better :)
 
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
i wish i had a 550 ghz p3 xeon 1mb... the HDD might become seti's bottleneck at that point.
 
H

hemicuda

Banned
Aug 6, 2002
54
0
0
i have a p3 xeon 550 tweaked the os and everything to the max and i run all the newest games and applications flawlessly just as my friends p4 1.6
 
V

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: Alphathree33
Xeon processors are designed for that environment... though I'll never understand how having a huge cache makes them that much better :)
Click to expand...

Cache is much, much faster than RAM, and damn near infinitely faster than HD storage. Data that is used repeatedly can be stored in cache for efficient access, the more cache you have the less you have to rely on your RAM and HD for data.

Server environments tend to benefit from a large cache, even if it's slower than on-die. Which is why Katmai P3 600's are so expensive - They're the last of their breed.

Viper GTS
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
i'll tell you what. i'll take a quad xeon 550 2 MB cache Netfinity over any of your multiple cpu P4 servers. any day of the week. that netfinity KICKS ASSS
 
L

LaBang

Golden Member
Jan 31, 2001
1,571
0
0
True, true.

I'm an Apple guy, but check out the dual 1Ghz Xserve. Shweet!
 
A

athithi

Golden Member
Mar 5, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i'll tell you what. i'll take a quad xeon 550 2 MB cache Netfinity over any of your multiple cpu P4 servers. any day of the week. that netfinity KICKS ASSS
Click to expand...

I administer a Netfinity 5500 (Dual PII 450Mhz) and a 7600 (Quad Xeon 700Mhz) with SCSI RAID 5e at work :) Awesome machines! Wish I could get one like that :)
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Obviously you don't know WTF you're talking about.

Damn fine servers
Click to expand...

WOW, looks pretty nice. if i had the extra money :( i'd get one of these just to say i had it.

i'm very curious about the mac osx server software tho. wonder if i could run it on my imac??
 
H

hemicuda

Banned
Aug 6, 2002
54
0
0
dam expensive and ridiculous servers i can build anything better and cheaper than that apple is a joke and always will be why dont u go price a imac and see what that costs u
 
R

RSI

Diamond Member
May 22, 2000
7,281
1
0
Originally posted by: hemicuda
dam expensive and ridiculous servers i can build anything better and cheaper than that apple is a joke and always will be why dont u go price a imac and see what that costs u
Click to expand...
When you learn how to speak English, maybe you'll be able to present a better argument.
 
V

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Originally posted by: hemicuda
dam expensive and ridiculous servers i can build anything better and cheaper than that apple is a joke and always will be why dont u go price a imac and see what that costs u
Click to expand...

Is your shift key broken? How about your punctuation keys?

Anyway, I'm not a mac fan. In general I think they're over-priced and underpowered.

However, I have full respect for their processors and now their xserve line.

Viper GTS
 
P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
anyone have $500 they can give me. i wanna buy os x server. :) try it out on my imac. will give me something to sell to my mac clients.
 
G

gotsmack

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2001
5,768
0
71
the hardware is still in a state of flux but its beginning to stabilize, not like back in the day where it was really a nobrainer. looking at roadmaps at the inquirer it looks like by this time next year hardware is going to be at a whole new level like 3X better the anything we have today.
 
S

spyordie007

Diamond Member
May 28, 2001
6,229
0
0
Originally posted by: hemicuda
dam expensive and ridiculous servers i can build anything better and cheaper than that apple is a joke and always will be why dont u go price a imac and see what that costs u
Click to expand...
I'm breaking my post number from 666 just to tell you that you are a moron if you belive that Apple servers are ridiculous. Yes you can build something cheaper, and you can build something better, but isnt this the case with any OEM built PC? There is something very easy and nice about having a pre-built BSD based server that requires next to no configuration whatsoever. I'm not questioning the fact that it costs more money. But let me ask you this, your a medium sized business that wants to have an onsite webserver but doesnt want to hire an admin to run and configure it. You want it to be rock-solid stable and easy enough that someone with basic computer knowledge can setup.
Mac OS X Server to the rescue, it's dead simple for someone to setup OS X Server with Apache and FTP for them to modify their website, very stable, very fast, very easy. In this situation it's actually cheaper to buy the OS X server than it is to save the $500 building the BSD server yourself, yet spending well more than that on man-hours building and configuring your server.
What if you just want a fast fileserver? Even better, very simple to configure, plug it into the gigabit uplink on your switch, setup the share and away you go.

Just because it isnt the best option for you doesnt mean it isnt the best option for some.

Combating ignorance, one moron at a time.

-Spy
 
L

lowtech1

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2000
4,644
1
0

the Fastest is the XEON. the P3 is in the mid and the P4 SUX BIG TIME. I mean that p4 slows to a crawl with even 1 terminal services client logged in. the xeon can handle 5 or 6 clients NO PROBLEM.
Click to expand...

You might want to check the network bandwidth, because I start to get slow down when there are 30-40 users hitting the terminal servers through each T1 line. Currently I have a dual Xeon 400mhz with 768 megs of ram & a dual Athlon 1.4ghz with 2GB ram that serving terminal services at work (the dual jobies weren't my choice). I have tested terminal services with 20 clients hitting a 550mhz Pentium at 500 megs of ram with very little slow down compare to 10 clients (intranet 100Base-T) before I implemented the full scale terminal services though out the company.

I was hoping to get a single cpu 800-1000mhz server & reuse the dual Xeon, and reallocate the saving for better workstations or a few more licenses for the database (junior position don't get to make purchase decisions). But, my first choice is to go with the old hardware that we have & uses Linux for the terminal workstations and connects to the Windows Terminal/Database servers to save money on licenses.

If I recall correctly - Citrix suggest to use a Pentium/Athlon 700-800mhz with 768mhz to serve around 50 clients (minimum is 400mhz & 500megs for 50 clients).

For Terminal services I don't think Xeon speed is going to make much of a diff over a regular cpu, because Word, email & database clients aren't know for memory instensive requierment. The only time that you see a big diff when use on the database server, but that point will be negated if you don't have fast raid & enought ram. I personally feel the most important part for a database server is fast raid/ram, while most other services only requiered a single cpu with 500-768megs server.


 
S

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
What's a terminal server?
I don't follow windows. I know I can keep 100 terminals open on my Ultra60 no problem at all.
Actually we have machines called sunrays which all are dumb terminals and there are hundreds of them running off one server, with full desktop and GUI and everything.
 
ebaycj

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
terminal server is a remote X-Term, except it's windows nt/2000/.net.

a terminal server session should take up about 20 something mb of ram (sometimes more) on the server, and should take about 56KBit worth of bandwidth (think 56k modem) for usable image quality (1024x768x16bit). That xeon 1mb 550mhz should be able to handle about 50 clients simultaneously if it has ~512mb memory.

shoot, we had a dual pentium pro 200mhz 1mb cache that was terminal serving 50 clients simultaneously (worked just fine).

ebaycj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom