[H] What's fastest ?
Am building a database server for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition. OS will be Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition. Server is probably going to be a Dell 6850 (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850?c=uk&l=en&s=lca&~tab=specstab#tabtop) Although I can get older IBM servers (hence the 4MB L3 cache option below) for a very good price. Basic spec is 4 CPU's, 24 GB of RAM and an external disk array. Just wondering how much performance difference there is between the followoing CPU's: 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 4MB L3 cache (400 MHz FSB ?) 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 8 MB L3 cache (667 MHz FSB) 4 x Xeon 3.6 GHz 1 MB L2 cache 4 x Xeon dual core 2.6 GHz 2 x 1 MB L2 cache My gut reaction says the 8 MB L3 cache chips will be faster than even the dual core chips in real world performance. Anybody else have a view ? Thanks, Steve
Re: [H] What's fastest ?
I would stay very far away from IBM servers. On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:45:15PM -, Steve wrote: > Am building a database server for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition. OS > will be Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition. Server is probably going > to be a Dell 6850 > (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850?c=uk&l=en&s=lca&~tab=specstab#tabtop) > > Although I can get older IBM servers (hence the 4MB L3 cache option below) > for a very good price. > > Basic spec is 4 CPU's, 24 GB of RAM and an external disk array. Just > wondering how much performance difference there is between the followoing > CPU's: > > 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 4MB L3 cache (400 MHz FSB ?) > 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 8 MB L3 cache (667 MHz FSB) > 4 x Xeon 3.6 GHz 1 MB L2 cache > 4 x Xeon dual core 2.6 GHz 2 x 1 MB L2 cache > > My gut reaction says the 8 MB L3 cache chips will be faster than even the > dual core chips in real world performance. Anybody else have a view ? > > Thanks, Steve -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] What's fastest ?
Don't do the IBM server route. Other then that, there are too many other variables.. how much system memory in each, hdd configurations, etc. My gut tells it would be tight between a 3.0 8MB & 3.6. Be prepared for the electric bill ;) -Original message- From: "Steve" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:46:55 -0600 To: "The Hardware List" hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] What's fastest ? > Am building a database server for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition. OS > will be Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition. Server is probably going to > be a Dell 6850 > (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850?c=uk&l=en&s=lca&~tab=specstab#tabtop) > > Although I can get older IBM servers (hence the 4MB L3 cache option below) > for a very good price. > > Basic spec is 4 CPU's, 24 GB of RAM and an external disk array. Just > wondering how much performance difference there is between the followoing > CPU's: > > 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 4MB L3 cache (400 MHz FSB ?) > 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 8 MB L3 cache (667 MHz FSB) > 4 x Xeon 3.6 GHz 1 MB L2 cache > 4 x Xeon dual core 2.6 GHz 2 x 1 MB L2 cache > > My gut reaction says the 8 MB L3 cache chips will be faster than even the > dual core chips in real world performance. Anybody else have a view ? > > Thanks, Steve > >
Re: [H] What's fastest ?
We have two identical "big" database servers at work with the following specs: 4x Xeon MP 3.0 (unknown cache) with 16GB. We have tempdb, transaction logs, and data volumes all split. To be honest, I haven't been that impressed with the performance of either. While I can only speculate, I think the real reason they appear to be such underperformers (for what they are) is that the Xeons all share a single bus. Personally, I would strongly encourage that you look at some Proliant 4-way Opteron machines. The processor bus and memory architecture should allow more "raw" speed to become "useful" speed. Opterons have historically proven to be better database servers--quite possibly for this reason. I'd also run Win2k3 Server x64. Greg - Original Message - From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:45 AM Subject: [H] What's fastest ? Am building a database server for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition. OS will be Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition. Server is probably going to be a Dell 6850 (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850?c=uk&l=en&s=lca&~tab=specstab#tabtop) Although I can get older IBM servers (hence the 4MB L3 cache option below) for a very good price. Basic spec is 4 CPU's, 24 GB of RAM and an external disk array. Just wondering how much performance difference there is between the followoing CPU's: 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 4MB L3 cache (400 MHz FSB ?) 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 8 MB L3 cache (667 MHz FSB) 4 x Xeon 3.6 GHz 1 MB L2 cache 4 x Xeon dual core 2.6 GHz 2 x 1 MB L2 cache My gut reaction says the 8 MB L3 cache chips will be faster than even the dual core chips in real world performance. Anybody else have a view ? Thanks, Steve
[H] oemx.inf files+their registry keys
Understand recent traffic about the Promise ultra133 tx2 eide controller, sort of. I have not had any trouble, until today. My U133 is now showing up with the hated yellow exclamation point in DM. I have tried to reinstall drivers and/or un-install the device several times without much luck. I do notice that no matter where I point W2K for the drivers, W2K chooses its' own location, completes the install, and, again fails. For some reason W2K just will not do/go where I sent it. Odd? I do notice the W2K (sp4 pro) seems to have created oem0.inf through oem15.inf in the winnt/system32/inf location. Several of the these numbered oemx.inf files do discuss the Promise U133 controller at 3 different driver versions, the default MS version, the Promise v2.0.29, and the Promise v2.0.43. The v2.0.43 was was running before the machine was shutdown for a case change. Can the "promise-related oemx.inf files be deleted from the inf directory? Will this clean-up or reset the -0005 keys in the "control set 001" area of the registry? It does seem that something is badly scrambled, but I'm confused about where to start any un-scramble work. I do NOT find any hidden installs for the controller in safe mode either. Ideas, tweaks, suggestions are welcome. Thanks Duncan This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net
Re: [H] oemx.inf files+their registry keys
First reseat the card, and ALL ribbon cables. This has been a recurring problem for me on some PCs with Ultra 100's133s. It has even occurred to me after putting on new cables Still a problem, then reinstall the drivers or switch from XP drivers to Promise drivers. You do have it in a unshared PCI slot right? If that doesn't help then try re-flashing your BIOS... note if you have a Maxtor or WD version of the Ultra 133 TX2 then make sure you use their flash and or drivers. If it isn't fixed then, if possible, boot into another OS, or put it in another computer, which will tell you right away if this is a hardware problem. If nothing helps then it is time to check your warranty. I think this is two years, Promise is good about it but make sure you try it in another PC before calling. At 06:47 AM 1/29/2006, you wrote: Understand recent traffic about the Promise ultra133 tx2 eide controller, sort of. I have not had any trouble, until today. My U133 is now showing up with the hated yellow exclamation point in DM. I have tried to reinstall drivers and/or un-install the device several times without much luck. I do notice that no matter where I point W2K for the drivers, W2K chooses its' own location, completes the install, and, again fails. For some reason W2K just will not do/go where I sent it. Odd? I do notice the W2K (sp4 pro) seems to have created oem0.inf through oem15.inf in the winnt/system32/inf location. Several of the these numbered oemx.inf files do discuss the Promise U133 controller at 3 different driver versions, the default MS version, the Promise v2.0.29, and the Promise v2.0.43. The v2.0.43 was was running before the machine was shutdown for a case change. Can the "promise-related oemx.inf files be deleted from the inf directory? Will this clean-up or reset the -0005 keys in the "control set 001" area of the registry? It does seem that something is badly scrambled, but I'm confused about where to start any un-scramble work. I do NOT find any hidden installs for the controller in safe mode either. Ideas, tweaks, suggestions are welcome. Thanks Duncan This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net
Re: [H] What's fastest ?
Thanks, I do plan running x64. I'd like to try an HP box, almost all my stuff so far is Dell, loads of 1850's and a few 2850's, also got two Compaq DL580's in quad format with Xeon 1.4GHz CPU's, some of the first that came out about three and a half years ago. The Compaq boxes have been great for reliability, not a single problem but that is when it was Compaq not HP. Chris, the system ram will be a minimum of 24 GB - knowing how Dell drop their pants when you get close to issuing a PO I guess this might increase to 32 MB :-) The power is an issue but these are going into a data centre in London and the power is included in the rack space. OK, IBM servers are out ! - Original Message - From: "Greg Sevart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [H] What's fastest ? We have two identical "big" database servers at work with the following specs: 4x Xeon MP 3.0 (unknown cache) with 16GB. We have tempdb, transaction logs, and data volumes all split. To be honest, I haven't been that impressed with the performance of either. While I can only speculate, I think the real reason they appear to be such underperformers (for what they are) is that the Xeons all share a single bus. Personally, I would strongly encourage that you look at some Proliant 4-way Opteron machines. The processor bus and memory architecture should allow more "raw" speed to become "useful" speed. Opterons have historically proven to be better database servers--quite possibly for this reason. I'd also run Win2k3 Server x64. Greg - Original Message - From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "The Hardware List" Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:45 AM Subject: [H] What's fastest ? Am building a database server for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition. OS will be Windows 2003 Server Enterprise edition. Server is probably going to be a Dell 6850 (http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850?c=uk&l=en&s=lca&~tab=specstab#tabtop) Although I can get older IBM servers (hence the 4MB L3 cache option below) for a very good price. Basic spec is 4 CPU's, 24 GB of RAM and an external disk array. Just wondering how much performance difference there is between the followoing CPU's: 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 4MB L3 cache (400 MHz FSB ?) 4 x Xeon MP 3.0 GHz 8 MB L3 cache (667 MHz FSB) 4 x Xeon 3.6 GHz 1 MB L2 cache 4 x Xeon dual core 2.6 GHz 2 x 1 MB L2 cache My gut reaction says the 8 MB L3 cache chips will be faster than even the dual core chips in real world performance. Anybody else have a view ? Thanks, Steve -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006
Re: [H] What's fastest ?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:03:40PM -, Steve wrote: > Thanks, I do plan running x64. I'd like to try an HP box, almost all my > stuff so far is Dell, loads of 1850's and a few 2850's, also got two Compaq > DL580's in quad format with Xeon 1.4GHz CPU's, some of the first that came > out about three and a half years ago. The Compaq boxes have been great for > reliability, not a single problem but that is when it was Compaq not HP. I admin about 3000 HP DL360/380s G4s running Linux, and so far they have been great. We also have some dell 1850/2850s, and while they are cheap and not bad, the HPs have been far more reliable. -- Bryan G. Seitz
