QUAD Core or Dual Core for Servers?

Hello all,

I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
server.

However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
would be better off with two processors?

The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
we are just using one server to do everything. On that server there
would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
and office management software. They also run Office through remote
access.

I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
are using would be best. No?

Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.

Please HELP!

Let me know if you need any more info.

THANKS!!!
Jim

I strongly recommend against using any production server as a terminal
server.

If I were you I'd consider going with a Dell Poweredge 1900, 1950, 2900 or
2950- Xeon 5160 3GHz - shouldn't need the quad core
Use your old server as the TS box.

Raid 5 is a good choice with the SAS drives.

If you are running Exchange on it or will get 4 GIG of RAM.

<> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> server.
>
> However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> would be better off with two processors?
>
> The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
> having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
> we are just using one server to do everything. On that server there
> would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
> Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
> domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
> and office management software. They also run Office through remote
> access.
>
> I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
> are using would be best. No?
>
> Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
> speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
> you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.
>
> Please HELP!
>
> Let me know if you need any more info.
>
> THANKS!!!
> Jim
>

PS don't install any apps on production servers - e.g. office, qb, etc.
Install antivirus, acrobat reader and that is about it.

<> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> server.
>
> However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> would be better off with two processors?
>
> The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
> having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
> we are just using one server to do everything. On that server there
> would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
> Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
> domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
> and office management software. They also run Office through remote
> access.
>
> I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
> are using would be best. No?
>
> Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
> speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
> you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.
>
> Please HELP!
>
> Let me know if you need any more info.
>
> THANKS!!!
> Jim
>

* :

> I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> server.

Nice machine. We have a bunch of them, they are very reliable...

> However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> would be better off with two processors?

That depends on your applications...

> The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
> having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
> we are just using one server to do everything.

That sounds like it could benefit from multiple cores. But without
knowing more details (i.e. what apps, how much is the data size, how
much RAM etc) it's hard to say.

> On that server there
> would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
> Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
> domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
> and office management software. They also run Office through remote
> access.

This also sounds as if two quad cores would be the best way to go, but
CPUs are not the only concern. Again, more details would be helpful..

BTW: it's usually not a very wise thing to have a single server running
as DC, file/print server, application server and terminal server.
Especially if downtime of this one machine would cost your company
serious money...

> I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
> are using would be best. No?

No. RAID5 is reliable but not really fast. If you want performance go
for RAID10 instead...

> Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
> speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
> you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.

Honestly, with the sparse information you provided one would need a very
good glass ball to give you any advices, except that you probaby want to
distribute the load to more than a single machine...

Benjamin

Thanks for the advice you guys. I know that having all those services
running on one machine can't be very helpful in the speed department. I
think it is a good idea to keep the old server for something to widen
the spread of workload.

As for the applications that I am using, I already said that I have
installed on the machine Microsoft Office for use in Terminal Services.
I run a school office management program that people access, along with
a schedule program. There are not really any other programs that get
run on the server per-say. The data is just stored on there for people
to access it using their local machines. An example would be quickbooks
data.

I don't run Exchange server.

As far as a domain controller goes, is it ideal to have two of them?
Then a file/print server? Then a server for any other applications,
like antivirus, WSUS?

Thanks. It is sounding like quad core might be the way to go here.



Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * :
>
> > I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> > that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> > server.
>
> Nice machine. We have a bunch of them, they are very reliable...
>
> > However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> > be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> > clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> > would be better off with two processors?
>
> That depends on your applications...
>
> > The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
> > having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
> > we are just using one server to do everything.
>
> That sounds like it could benefit from multiple cores. But without
> knowing more details (i.e. what apps, how much is the data size, how
> much RAM etc) it's hard to say.
>
> > On that server there
> > would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
> > Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
> > domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
> > and office management software. They also run Office through remote
> > access.
>
> This also sounds as if two quad cores would be the best way to go, but
> CPUs are not the only concern. Again, more details would be helpful..
>
> BTW: it's usually not a very wise thing to have a single server running
> as DC, file/print server, application server and terminal server.
> Especially if downtime of this one machine would cost your company
> serious money...
>
> > I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
> > are using would be best. No?
>
> No. RAID5 is reliable but not really fast. If you want performance go
> for RAID10 instead...
>
> > Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
> > speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
> > you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.
>
> Honestly, with the sparse information you provided one would need a very
> good glass ball to give you any advices, except that you probaby want to
> distribute the load to more than a single machine...
>
> Benjamin

I also forgot to mention that you said that RAID 10 is the best.
However, the storage controller that HP offers can only do RAID 5, or
RAID 6 at the best. Can you suggest a smart controller that would be
able to run a RAID 10 configuration?

Thanks!


wrote:
> Thanks for the advice you guys. I know that having all those services
> running on one machine can't be very helpful in the speed department. I
> think it is a good idea to keep the old server for something to widen
> the spread of workload.
>
> As for the applications that I am using, I already said that I have
> installed on the machine Microsoft Office for use in Terminal Services.
> I run a school office management program that people access, along with
> a schedule program. There are not really any other programs that get
> run on the server per-say. The data is just stored on there for people
> to access it using their local machines. An example would be quickbooks
> data.
>
> I don't run Exchange server.
>
> As far as a domain controller goes, is it ideal to have two of them?
> Then a file/print server? Then a server for any other applications,
> like antivirus, WSUS?
>
> Thanks. It is sounding like quad core might be the way to go here.
>
>
>
> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> > * :
> >
> > > I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> > > that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> > > server.
> >
> > Nice machine. We have a bunch of them, they are very reliable...
> >
> > > However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> > > be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> > > clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> > > would be better off with two processors?
> >
> > That depends on your applications...
> >
> > > The server I am replacing is kindof an everything server. Instead of
> > > having two DC's, and a File and Print server and an application server,
> > > we are just using one server to do everything.
> >
> > That sounds like it could benefit from multiple cores. But without
> > knowing more details (i.e. what apps, how much is the data size, how
> > much RAM etc) it's hard to say.
> >
> > > On that server there
> > > would be about 20 concurrent connections at the most. It also runs
> > > Terminal Services. All the data is stored in it and shared through a
> > > domain name. People also get data from it from programs like quickbooks
> > > and office management software. They also run Office through remote
> > > access.
> >
> > This also sounds as if two quad cores would be the best way to go, but
> > CPUs are not the only concern. Again, more details would be helpful..
> >
> > BTW: it's usually not a very wise thing to have a single server running
> > as DC, file/print server, application server and terminal server.
> > Especially if downtime of this one machine would cost your company
> > serious money...
> >
> > > I need it to access data very fast. I think RAID 5, which we currently
> > > are using would be best. No?
> >
> > No. RAID5 is reliable but not really fast. If you want performance go
> > for RAID10 instead...
> >
> > > Would it be better with the information I provided to have faster clock
> > > speed, or more cores? I don't know if the programs that we would use
> > > you benefit from Quad-Core, but maybe I am wrong.
> >
> > Honestly, with the sparse information you provided one would need a very
> > good glass ball to give you any advices, except that you probaby want to
> > distribute the load to more than a single machine...
> >
> > Benjamin

* :

> I also forgot to mention that you said that RAID 10 is the best.
> However, the storage controller that HP offers can only do RAID 5, or
> RAID 6 at the best.

Which HP storage controller only does RAID5/6 but not 10 (or 0+1)?

Benjamin

wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I need a bit of advice. I am looking into replacing the current server
> that I am using. I think I am going to purchase the HP ML350 series
> server.
>
> However, when it comes to the processor to get I don't know which would
> be better. A fast Dual Core Xeon 5160 (3.00GHz, 1333FSB), or a lower
> clock speed Quad-Core Xeon E5320 (1.86Ghz, 1066FSB)? Also, think I
> would be better off with two processors?

Without knowing precisely what your current server is, it's quite likely
that any of these processors would be a tremendous leap up from your
current one. I'd say stick with dual-cores (one or two processors),
save the cash and get yourself a VMWare license to split up the workload
among virtual machines. That way if any of those functions locks up on
you, all you have to do is reboot the virtual machine.

Yousuf Khan

Ben, There is a difference between RAID 10, and RAID 0+1. Visit
http://www.acnc.com/04_01_00.html to see the difference between the
different RAID Arrays.

Also, visit here to see what each one of the HP storage controllers is
capable of.
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/s...aycontrollers/

Note that I am getting Serial Hard drives, not SCSI.


Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * :
>
> > I also forgot to mention that you said that RAID 10 is the best.
> > However, the storage controller that HP offers can only do RAID 5, or
> > RAID 6 at the best.
>
> Which HP storage controller only does RAID5/6 but not 10 (or 0+1)?
>
> Benjamin

* :

> Ben, There is a difference between RAID 10, and RAID 0+1.

I never said they are the same. However, the performance and safety
margins are identical as is the amount of "wasted" disk capacity. So
from a practical point of view either RAID 10 or RAID 0+1 are basically
the same. And both are faster than RAID5 (and performance is what you've
been asking for!)...

> Also, visit here to see what each one of the HP storage controllers is
> capable of.
> http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/s...aycontrollers/

_I_ am aware of which HP controller is capable. But you said the
"storage controller that HP offers can only do RAID 5, or RAID 6 at the
best." How about just telling us _which_ "storage controller" you're
talking about?

> Note that I am getting Serial Hard drives, not SCSI.

What "Serial Hard drives"? SAS or SCSI? There's a difference between them...

BTW: all HP server SAS RAID controllers do RAID 0+1 or RAID 10, so what?

Benjamin