Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > 1X Opteron Dual Core 2.4GHZ OR 2X Opteron Dual Core 2.0GHZ
1X Opteron Dual Core 2.4GHZ OR 2X Opteron Dual Core 2.0GHZ
| Posted by JustinK101, 11-07-2007, 02:04 AM |
| I am going to buy a new server and I am unsure of which route to take.
Basically the cost is identical for a Dell server with:
1 AMD Operton Dual Core 2.4Ghz
OR
2 AMD Operton Dual Core 2.0Ghz
What is the felling? Does the 4 cores out weight the extra 400 mhz per processor, but only having 2 cores?
The server will be running:
Windows 2003 Standard x32
Plesk 8.2
IIS 6.0 [ Application Pools Setup ]
MySQL
Microsft SQL Express 2005 [ ONLY CAN USE 1 CPU/CORE ]
MailEnable
Can my applications even handle/utilize four cores? Thanks for the information.
Bind
|
| Posted by bluerocket, 11-07-2007, 04:20 AM |
| IMHO, I think that 4 cores will generally outperform 2 in situations where you don't have many calculations which are cache/memory dependent. Of course I've never tested this theory but I would say it depends on how you think the load will affect your server.
Since cost isn't a factor then I'd generally go for more cores and assign an app to a certain core (so it gets executed there more often) so that I can have a dedicated resource for each app (and less context switching which eats CPU cycles). I don't think you'll see much of a performance impact in either scenario though, but 4 cores could be better for the future.
|
| Posted by JustinK101, 11-07-2007, 04:27 AM |
| Yeah, I was wondering how its possible to assign specific processes to particular cores, for example:
core0 = general windows tasks 1
core1 = general widnows tasks 2
core2 = Microsft SQL
core3 = IIS
Also wondering how multiple cores work. It is my understanding that it works as follows under windows 2003. Firstly uses core0, when core0 is busy doing work it goes to core1, then core 2, etc, etc. So its not like a single processes gets works spread across all four cores at once. Is this correct logic?
For example if MySQL executes a massive query will I see activity 20% on all four cores, or simply full 80% use of the first core?
|
| Posted by JustinK101, 11-08-2007, 01:52 PM |
| Bumb, anybody.
|
| Posted by pinoyup, 11-09-2007, 04:35 AM |
| I think this forum belongs to the dedicated server forum, you will get more answers there.
Anyway, for single threaded applications/services, the faster 2.4 outweighs the slower 2.0, however for threaded applications offcourse the 4 cores is better than 2 cores. (my 2 cents)
The operating system is responsible for distributing the load accross the cpus, so don't worry about assigning web server, database, etc to individual cores, trust me, you don't want to get into that.
|
| Posted by JustinK101, 11-09-2007, 05:21 AM |
| OK, well looks like I will go with the 4 core, Operton 2.0Ghz, I just hope windows 2003 uses each core to its full potential.
Do I have to setup a IIS web garden if I want IIS to use more than one cpu core?
|
| Posted by pinoyup, 11-09-2007, 05:54 AM |
| Definitely go with the 4 core, that's what I would do. Careful with your version of Windows 2003 though. Windows 2003 Web edition only allows 2GB of RAM maximum while the standard version allows up to 4GB, while the enterprise allows alot more. Don't worry about windows not being able to utilize the full potential of your multi-core cpu, with it being a resource intensive os and all. hehe. peace!
To my understanding, web garden is used for scaling an application pool. I don't think you will be needing it unless you will be using your server as an application server.
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
Shared Hosting
Shared Hosting
