1) what is the command to find out what processor is installed on the server
2) how do i find out what type on hdd i have sata or scsi?
whats the ssh command to find these two things out?
Within 2 servers below, what is faster than:
Server 1:
Primary hard driver: 73GB SCSI 10k (for system, database...)
Secondary hard driver: 160GB SATA (for /home/ directory)
Server 2: 2 x 160GB SATA RAID 1
Would having a 15k rpm SCSI HD (vs 7200rpm SATA) provide significant improvement for a web server only running php scripts (the scripts are small in size, they just make DB calls to another server and return the results)? What if eAccelerator was installed?
View 3 Replies View RelatedMaybe what the advantages/disadvantages are of each in regards to a web hosting configuration?
View 6 Replies View Relatedabout SSD vs SCSI vs SATA HDDs?
I heard that SSD are slow in writing, but fast in reading.
is this true?
80GB Intel X25-M SSD is the model i am looking at.
Is this HDD recommended on servers? will this perform better then SCSI or SATA RAID10?
how this works, tell me more about writing
eading speeds (on SSD) etc.
what is the benefit of scsi upon a sata hdisk
View 10 Replies View RelatedI wonder which drive give the best performance? Look like they all have the same 15000 rpm. :d
Any experience?
I currently have a Dell Poweredge 2650 from a few years back, it is running...
2x Xeon 2.4ghz 512K
3GB DDR266 RAM
1x73GB SCSI
Back in the day this system cost $2000, now it's not worth close to that.
So my plans were to dump this bad boy as an SQL server, seeing it has the SCSI backplane and 3GB of RAM, and SQL usually doesn't need as much CPU as a web server.
Now my question, would it be better to use this server or would it be better to build a cheap Core 2 Duo with a RAID0 array with a few SATA drives?
Before you start going off on RAID0, it doesn't matter to me because I am using clustering/failover so data will not be lost and no downtime will be received if the array fails.
Basically what I want to know, is it worth it to keep this server and build upon it or would it be better to sell this server and look into spending an extra few hundred to build a new system with SATA RAID.
I'm going by price/performance rather than reliability as I am using failover to let you know once again .
I am looking for something like this:
[url]
To work on an HP ProLiant DL360/380. All I know is they are SCSI U320 drive bays, or that is the type of drive they take. Can anyone provide any insight on what may work? We are trying to get a more cost effective way to get more storage into a server. The largest SCSI drive I can find is 300GB for $200. You can get 2TB drives for that much these days.
I'm going to use it for a massive SQL database driven site.
Was wondering if SA-SCSI 10K RPM is far away better than Raptor SATA 10K if combined with quad core processor and 8GB RAM?
is it really worth the money nowadays to put in SCSI or SAS instead of SATAII (single disk, non-raid here), IF reliability is the only concern (i.e. NOT i/o performance) during the usual 3 year life time of a server?
Actually, I was pretty amazed by the sata reliability, in the past 3 years the only hdd failure was two sata on a mismatched mobo, which didn't support SATAII (a lot of read/write error, eventually died). Although we have 0% scsi and sas failure.
For building a house for, ie, 30 VPS, what kind of disks are you using? normal SATA? Raptor? SCSI?
I am going to use Quad-core CPU with 4-8GB RAM, but still wondering about the disks
Is it worth to pay $75 for 147GB SA-SCSI 15K RPM rethar than free 250GB SATA II?
I mean is it very big differance in speed?
Can clients feel that?
If the box is Single Processor Quad Core Xeon 5310 - 1.60GHz (Clovertown) - 1 x 8MB cache from softlayer
So I've just got a server with 2xSATA raid 1 (OS, cpanel and everything in here) and 4xSCSI raid 10 (clean).
Which one do you guys think will give the best performance:
1. Move mysql only to 4xSCSI raid 10
2. Move mysql and home folder to 4xSCSI raid 10
Planning to buy a server from softlayer, adding a single 300gb 15k scsi drive costs 100$/month and adding 4 250gb sata drives with raid-10 costs 90$/month
Which one would you pick up and why?
planing to buy a new server a little confused which i should choose .... which server would you go for...
**** config 1 ****
4 Processor single core Opteron 854 2.8ghz (2.8ghz x 4)
4GB FB ECC RAM
2x 36gb 15,000 SA/SCSI
RAID 1
**** config 2 ****
Single processor Xeon 5460 3.16ghz (3.16ghz x 4)
2GB FB ECC RAM (config 1 with 4 gb ram)
2x 36gb 10,000 SA/SCSI (config 1 with 15k rpm sas drive)
RAID 1
**** config 3 ****
Single processor Xeon 5355 2.66ghz (2.66ghz x 4)
2GB FB ECC RAM (config 1 with 4 gb ram)
2x 36gb 10,000 SA/SCSI (config 1 with 15k rpm sas drive)
RAID 1
Just curious what your thoughts are on performance:
2 SCSI Drives 10k w/RAID 1
or
4 SATA 10k w/RAID 10
Prices are not too different with 4 drives just being a tad more.
I cant decide between
Dual Processor Single Core
Dual Processor Single Core Xeon - 3.00GHz (Irwindale)
Or
Single Processor - Quad Core?
Single Processor Quad Core Xeon 3220 - 2.40GHz (Kentsfield)
My site needs "raw" processing power due to the applications it runs. ram (over 2 gb) and hdd are not that important to me.
could someone point me in the right direction.
about the hd,there are two options, the first one is four 7200rpm sata to do raid 10,
the second one is two 10000rpm sata to do raid 1, about the performance, which one will be better?
how to set up exim on a bare linux server to not allow more than one recipient per command?
I don't want to allow, for example, mail lists.
Example of exim command
2008-11-19 20:14:11 [2135] cwd=/path/to/account 3 args: /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i
2008-11-19 20:14:11 [2135] 3L5JXP-0001bH-MF <= apache@server.com U=apache P=local S=1091 T="Bla bla" from <apache@server.com> for mail1@ee.com mail2@dd.com mail3@dfffg.com ETC ETC ETC
I have got a server with the following specs:
Dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz
6 Gb DDR ECC REG
1 HD 147 Gb 15K
On the board, there is an SCSI adapter which is an Adaptec 7899.
This configuration is working perfectly under Windows 2003. However, as per customer request, I have to install CentOS, RedHat or Fedora. Even Debian is OK.
However, during the install, the OS find NO hard drives and the installation is aborted.
I googled some time and it looks that there is 1 million people looking for a solution on how to install Linux on a machine with an AIC-7899.
The installer loads a driver AIC-7XXX but didn't find the device anyway.
Why servers are being run out of memory by the 'sort' command even when the logs are small? Here's what is currently on a site:
-rw-r--r-- 2 root root 22392143 Mar 26 11:40 access_log
-rw-r--r-- 2 root root 68018869 Mar 26 10:50 access_log.processed.1
-rw-r--r-- 3 root root 67671664 Mar 26 09:50 access_log.processed.2
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 69908 Mar 26 10:50 access_log.stat
[Code] .....
I'm currently in the process of ordering a new server and would like to throw another $50-$70 at the default SATA II 7k 250 GB to increase performance. The server will host a site similar to WHT (php, mysql, and some forum traffic ).
There are three options I can get for the price:
1. Add another SATA II 7k 250 GB and set up RAID 1
2. Add a 73GB 15k RPM SA-SCSI and put mySQL on it. No RAID.
3. Toss out the SATA II 7k and take two SATA 10k 150 GB instead. Put mySQL on one of them. No RAID.
Please keep in mind that the question is budget-related (I know I can get more if I spend an extra $200 but that's not what I want ). Which of the above will make me happiest?
I'm about to purchase a 2nd server to use as a database server. I've been quoted for 2 x SATA II 320GB hdd's in RAID 1 (the same of which I currently use on my single server), but searching around it appears SCSI is the norm for db servers. The problem is, my host does not offer these as a standard/upgrade option and they would need to be specially ordered (along with RAID card), which is expensive.
The fastest disks they offer are 150GB SATA 10K Raptors. My question is, would these be sufficient (compared to SCSI) and do they perform noticeably better than the standard SATA II disks?
Quoted database server specs:
Server = 1 x Dual Core Intel Woodcrest 5130
Memory = 4G RAM
Hard Drive 1 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Hard Drive 2 = 320G SATA II Hard Drive
Raid Config = RAID 1 (3 Ware Hardware RAID)
Bandwidth = 3000G Multi-Homed Bandwidth
IP Address = 4 IPs
OS = Centos 4.6 32 bit
Service Monitoring = Ping Monitoring with Email Notification
Server Management = Self-Managed
Control Panel = None
$239 Monthly
We have a powerful server for our databases, 8 cores, 4gb ram etc because we have a huge amount of MySQL data. We store the data on a standard SATAII 500GB drive, would we notice a dramatic performance improvement if we stored the data on a SA-SCSI 10/15k drive?
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi, I've been lurking around WebHostingTalk for a little while now and have finally decided to register and post. I see there are tons of knowledgeable game server professionals in this forum and thought this would be a great place to get some helpful hints while having fun at the same time. I currently have a server colocated in Los Angeles. I was able to get a server built for cheap with the following specs:
IBM eServer 326 (1U)
AMD Opteron 275 (room for 2)
2 GB DDR400 ECC-R
15K SCSI Hard Drives
Windows 2003 Server
Bandwidth: 3Mbps Burstable Mzima.
I'm trying to run a couple of Counter-Strike 1.6 servers for a couple of friends and clanmates of mine. There are currently only 3, maybe up to 5 if possible, servers being run right now with 1 of them being a 24 player public server (which isn't really filled 24/7), the rest are private match servers. I've been trying to accelerate them each to 250FPS+, 250FPS for the public and 500FPS+ for the private match servers but am having running problems.
The problem I am having is that only 1 of the servers will be able steadily maintain 500FPS. The other servers would fluctuate between 300 - 1000FPS. I've tried the "Windows Media Player/Flash" trick, and also the WinHL-Booster metamod plugin none of which have been able to suite our needs. We all want steady 500FPS w/ low pings for our private match servers for CALeague, because we all get jealous of each other.
I’ve been searching around for a while and don’t know what else to do. Any help that you all can provide will be greatly appreciated.
I have ordered a dedicated server SATA Xeon but got IDE Xeon. Should I contact my datacenter to change the server or is ide and sata the same thing and it does not make a real difference.
View 9 Replies View RelatedI have a delicated server with "Intel RAID Controller: Intel(R) 82801ER SATA RAID Controller",I cannot find information on this raid.The 80 GB harddisk is about 4 years old,if one harddisk fail,I wonder if I can swap a new one bigger capacity and it will auto rebuilt?
View 2 Replies View RelatedCode:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 6
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.40GHz
stepping : 5
cpu MHz : 3392.618
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 0
cpu cores : 2
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 6
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov$
bogomips : 6788.78
processor : 1
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 6
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.40GHz
stepping : 5
cpu MHz : 3392.618
cache size : 2048 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 1
cpu cores : 2
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 6
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov$
bogomips : 6782.22
I see that there is clearly 2 processors. However, in the section for each processor it says cpu cores :2. Does that make this a dual core dual processor (4 cores)? I also see a core ID, which makes me think possibly it is just 1 processor with 2 cores.
I have bough a dedicated server with 2GB Ram, i have installed Hypervm and so surpise when my server is using most of my memory.
I type cat /proc/meminfo
[root@srv ~]# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 1784832 kB
MemFree: 47576 kB
Buffers: 62976 kB
Cached: 1454172 kB
SwapCached: 84 kB
Active: 251024 kB
Inactive: 1347412 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree: 0 kB
LowTotal: 1784832 kB
LowFree: 47576 kB
SwapTotal: 2097144 kB
SwapFree: 2096988 kB
Dirty: 96 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 81324 kB
Mapped: 26076 kB
Slab: 62488 kB
PageTables: 8844 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 2989560 kB
Committed_AS: 416152 kB
VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB
VmallocUsed: 2252 kB
VmallocChunk: 34359735799 kB
Is this normal when Cached: 1454172 kB?
So this is without a doubt the processor below:
[url]
Why does it list 8 separate entries?
Does this imply two physical L5410 processors?
Quote:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5410 @ 2.33GHz
stepping : 10
cpu MHz : 2327.671
cache size : 6144 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 0
cpu cores : 4
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips : 4657.61
processor : 1
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5410 @ 2.33GHz
stepping : 10
cpu MHz : 2327.671
cache size : 6144 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 4
core id : 1
cpu cores : 4
fdiv_bug : no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug : no
coma_bug : no
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 cx16 xtpr lahf_lm
bogomips : 4654.98
