Without anyone knowing your actual application load patterns, they are completely guessing.

"MySQL server" can mean many things when you load profile a machine. We have customers that slam CPU, and barely touch disk since tables are loaded into RAM. We have other customers who don't touch CPU, but are maxing out 6 drive RAID10 arrays of 15k SAS.

It all depends on your load patterns. I would say your programmer (hopefully) will have more insight into this than some random hosting company sales rep, or a bunch of people on a message board.

If you want to talk generalities, go with faster disk every time. I would make an educated guess that 95% of our dedicated servers sit at 10% CPU usage or less, while disk subsystems are regularly overwhelmed. CPU simply doesn't matter for *most* hosting applications (there are of course exceptions to every rule).

So, if you trust your programmer go with what he says. If you don't trust him, get a different one :)

Good luck to ya.

-Phil

Ok here are some ssh screen shots..


This is what my server looks like the majority of the time. I call it Idle..

http://www.boneprone4life.com/normal.jpg

and

http://www.boneprone4life.com/normal2.jpg

Thats how it looks most the time.. Granted these were not taken at peak times but this is how it is most the time.



Seprate from this twice a day I have a cron run for about 1 hour each. When that runs it kind of bogs things down. It is an issue yes but my #1 prioroty is idle performance and not so much this. Yes it would be ideal that during this cron the server could handle it well so there are no perfomnace issuse for these several hours per day as the cron runs.. This is what it looks like when this cron runs for those hours:

http://boneprone4life.com/normalcron.jpg

the mysql and other scripts are on a seprate HD than the the lighthttpd image hosting.

Hey phill. As you know I have a box with you as well. It hosts my actual sites. And it runs like a sleeping kitten. Just purrrrrrrrrs and works great..

I also have one with jupiter that hosts another line of sites. It also purrrrrs and is very well balanced..


The server here im talking about is a seprate server i bought to handle a very heavy mysql spider, croping, mysql search heavy and secondary image hosting..

Its been fun trying to figure this one out to get the best out of it.


Its job has been to host these thumbs, http://www.socalmovies.com/moviest/blonde1.shtml
run that search box you see at the bottom of the page which is mysql heavy, and run a 2 hour a day cron that builds the gallereis with php.

Which you can see from the screen shots above does take a load.

Given those top outputs, I'd be inclined to say go with the more powerful CPU.

Output of iostat -x would be useful during busy/non-busy times as well

-Phil

Server 1 alex for 200

Glad to hear things are running good :)

Good luck on this project as well! As mentioned, it looks like your apps are using more CPU than I would generally expect, so the faster CPU might get you further than the faster disk. However, given the amount of system CPU I would definitely get the output of iostat -x and a vmstat for some time during your busy (cronjob) periods.

4GB RAM looks to be just about right, given the amount used for filesystem cache.

I guess it would help if I put what kind of server its on currently to get these resutls!

Its currently on:

IBM xSeries 335

Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz
4 GB ECC REG Memory
73GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD1
146GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD2


So the results you see here are on that of SCSI HD's............

ANother shot of idle.

http://www.boneprone4life.com/normal3.jpg

mysql being from the search being used.. Lighthttpd being the image hosting.

Crons not running at this moment.

Yeah.. I'd go for server A then given those specs. The upgrade to the "oldschool" Xeons at 3Ghz will be a significant CPU upgrade in itself. While the Core2 CPU is somewhat better, it's not going to "blow away" the dual 3Ghz Xeon in real-world performance.

For static image hosting like that, SCSI (or SAS) simply cannot be beat. The differences between SATA are still beyond what I'd expect due to specs - A 10krpm SCSI or SAS drive will simply wipe the floor with a 10krpm SATA drive in the real world.

you need a faster cpu for sure as mysql is maxing out the current cpu.

I'd first look at your mysql statements and tables and find out why mysql is maxing out your cpu (unless you're currently running on a P3 or something)

Ok.. So you are saying no on the Quadcore.. Go with the Xeon with the SCSI option..

Even though the current server you are seeing these results on are already a Xeon with SCSI.. I can forsee about the same reslts as what I posted above?

No?

Current server you are seeing these screen shots from is a

currently on:



Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz
4 GB ECC REG Memory
73GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD1
146GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD2

Hey Phil..............

How is going from what it is currently on an:

Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz
4 GB ECC REG Memory
73GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD1
146GB ultra320 15k SCSI HDD2


to upgrade to

Dual Xeon 3.0GHz w/HT (2x 1MB L2 Cache)
4GB DDR ECC REG RAM
146GB 15k SCSI HDD1
146GB 15k SCSI HDD1


going to make much difference in a issue like this?? Wouldnt the 4 quads better address the issue? Seems like you are reconmending more a lateral move no?

http://www.boneprone4life.com/normal.jpg


I dont see much a improvement WITH WHAT HE ALREADY IS USING if he goes with the Xeon option. Its sort of what he already has.
Please explain.

why not get a quad core with scsi 15k drives ?

cant........

Have np idea, i am not a tech guy

get more 10k rpm hd's in the dual or quad core machine then and do raid 5 :)

I would say server A for the same reasons as everyone else above... HD is almost always your biggest bottleneck, there's no reason for most servers to have the latest and greatest processors with the most marketing behind them, when 2-3 year old workhouse technology is just as good when combined with SCSI drives.

I agree.. But have you seen my screenshots??

Those are with a SCSI HD server.

Dank,

Because the server is not a quad core :) If it was, I would say yes.. you'll likely get better performance with it according to the limited information before me. Again, before I'd feel comfortable offering a prospective customer an upgrade solution - I'd really like to be able to see output of iostat and vmstat at bare minimum.

Server option "B" is a single processor, dual core for a total of two CPU cores @ 2.4Ghz. Server option "A" is a dual processor, single core setup for a total of two CPU cores @ 3.0Ghz. The Core processor is better, but not by a mile. I would go as far to say as you'd see fairly similar performance characteristics in the real world given the two options, with the Core beating the Xeon by a tad.

And yeah, ideally here you'd simply go all out and get a server w/ both disk and CPU. Something like a Dell PE2950 or similar (e.g. 4 or 8 CPU cores total, and SCSI disk). Granted, that's expensive.

And the difference between an old 2.4Ghz Xeon and a 3.0Ghz will be decent. The CPU's on the two machines listed are "roughly" similar, so I'd go with what has the better disk subsystem.

-Phil

To reiterate what Phil21 has said... double check with the tech guy again to see how many processors you are getting.

server A: 2 cpu x 1 core each = 2 cores
server B: 1 cpu x 2 core each = 2 cores... or is it actually 2 x 2 core? (dual - Core 2 Duos)?

I havent seen a server run on 1 CPU in awhile.. maybe we're spoiled here at Silvercash =p

core2duo's are a desktop proc and can not be dual.

your screenshots don't help much thats just your current machine load. however your mysql is only using 1.9% of your memory.. you might wan to increase that.. i.e tune your my.cnf file

run the benchmark tool and you'll get a score the score will tell you everything you need to know.

the equivalent of a core2duo e6600 is a xeon 3060 and it is the **exact same** cpu, there is absolutely no difference. intel rebranded it and increased the price.

just fyi

If I got server B, I would do the upgrade the sales guy mentioned to it. Not sure if that helps a lot or not.

"ability to upgrade to Quad-Cores later (like Core 2 Quad Q6600:
4x 2.4GHz, 8MB Cache). "

also dont forget first server is probably better quality hardware second machine is problably a low end desktop board thats why scsi is not possible where the first machine is a server board.

its probably not scsi because the case can't fit the SCSI card... or because its matched pricing.

either the older dual xeon which they have in stock for a while but with scsi 15krpm or the new (so they have a capex) core2quad with raptors

Sales guy:

Upgrade to Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x 2.4GHz, 8MB Cache) is $149 one time
setup.
Wow, if you upgrade to that Q6600 and setup RAID10 (4x 37GB 10k Raptor
SATA HDDs), your server would be a monster mysql server. :)

yup, raid-10 raptors would out perform 2 single scsi 15k rpm

fyi, the difference in cost between core2duo e6600 and core2quad q6600 is like $60

Ok.. All the way up till now my programer has been insisting on the SCSI Server A option..

Now he's changing his mind.. LOL. I think he likes the 4 hds option and the raid..

"Hmmmm. Thats intresting
37 gb will be 37 * 2 gb for one volume

and we will have 2x 37gb hdds for mysql & system boot

and 37*2 gb for thumbs maybe.. Hmm. This could be good"

you dont need 2 hd's for thumbs i have done 80mbs on a celeron 2.4 with a normal ide hd using less then 20% cpu and less then 200mb of ram.

Thumbs on one hd and shit on the other.

dont do what he is saying, then it wont be raid 10.

get 1 RAID-10 array using the 4 x 36GB Raptors and you will smoke the Xeon in HDD speeds. The RAM and CPU is already better on Server B.

Dont do what who is saying?

your programmer. splitting it up like he wants will not get you better performance than a RAID-10 array

if you can get:

Intel Core2Quad Q6600
[ 4 x 2.4Ghz, 8MB L2 Cache ]
2GB DDR2-667 RAM
4 x 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM SATA
Hardware RAID-10


Then this server will kill the Xeon in all factors, and this discussion is over. Server B, with the above specs is the winnar.

What is the price they are charging you monthly for the above server? how much bandwidth is included? just wondering

500.00 per month with 30mpbs

Non cogent

The salles guy and my programer are now arguing. My programer doesnt want raid 10. Sales guy is explaing to him we do.

""RAID0 is not something we should do. stick with your original plan or SERIOUSLY consider RAID10. It is
best for your server and will actually out perform. It not only gives you fast I/O disk, but also
protect you from hard drives failure. However, if there are some reasons
that you can't go with RAID10, you can go with 2x single drives without
RAID cause RAID0 is not something we should do."

Programer is saying "raid10 can't match the speed of dual raid 0"

thoughts?