MJ> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:42:01 -0400
MJ> From: Mike Jakubik
MJ> Yes there is, i need a 1U single Opteron board, with 2 integrated
MJ> cards. I guess the current AMD offerings do not meet my
MJ> requirements.
The IWill QK8S intrigues me. Has anyone tried one?
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - h
SA> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:59:03 +0930
SA> From: Shane Ambler
SA> I haven't dug real deep for data but a casual look through the
SA> Intel's dual Xeon board specs shows they don't say where their
SA> network controllers are connected but some of their boards have an
SA> Intel ethernet controlle
On 28/4/2006 1:38, "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Nilsson wrote:
>> Mike Jakubik wrote:
>>> As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
>>> motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
>>> socket AM2 comes out.
>>
>> That is an old myth: h
- Original Message -
From: "David O'Brien"
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:11:05PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
Getting off topic now but I'd submit to you that a 1207 pin vs 940 pin
is setting up for the access requirements of quad core something that
AM2 is not going to be capable of hence
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:14PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 12:11:05PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >>No! Socket AM2 is the DDR2 939-pin Athlon64 desktop replacement.
> >>Socket F(1207) is DDR2 the 940-pin Opteron server replacement.
> >>
> >
> >Same c
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:14PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >
> >>Steven Hartland wrote:
> >>
> >>>IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
> >>>socket is significantly differ
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just look around the list on the continuous problems people have with
that and the nve card. I would never feel safe putting these in
production.
I would agree with nve but not had any problems with
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just look around the list on the continuous problems people have with
that and the nve card. I would never feel safe putting these in production.
I would agree with nve but not had any problems with bge
here and we put them
Steven Hartland wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
socket AM2 comes out.
That
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
socket AM2 comes out.
That is an old myth: http://
Martin Nilsson wrote:
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when
socket AM2 comes out.
That is an old myth: http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/
Its not an old myth. Find me a single cpu opte
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No! Socket AM2 is the DDR2 939-pin Athlon64 desktop replacement.
Socket F(1207) is DDR2 the 940-pin Opteron server replacement.
Same crap, different pins. The change simply allows AMD cpus to use DDR2
memory, nothing mo
Mike Jakubik wrote:
As much as i love AMDs cpus, the availability of good server
motherboards and chipsets stinks, hopefully that will change when socket
AM2 comes out.
That is an old myth: http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/
___
freebsd-performance@fre
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket is significantly different.
Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow AMD to
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:43:27PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> Steven Hartland wrote:
> >IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
> >socket is significantly different.
>
> Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow AMD to
> use DDR2 memory. It appl
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket is significantly different.
Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow AMD to
use DDR2 memory. It app
Steven Hartland wrote:
IIRC AM2 is not a server solution just a client one the new server
socket is significantly different.
Its not a server/desktop thing, its a new socket that will allow AMD to
use DDR2 memory. It applies to both Athlons and Opterons.
_
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Jakubik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Gilbert wrote:
This isn't random. As I understand the issue, the Opteron HT bus
handles synchronization much faster. So for a game --- this doesn't
matter ... games don't (usually) need sync. Databases, however, liv
Bill Moran wrote:
Lost me here.
Are you saying 1U units from Sun? Or does Dell have a 1U called a
"Sun"?
I am pretty-much locked into Dell - decision made by others. Actually,
I've been pretty happy with the Dell HW, but it's a shame they don't
offer AMD servers.
I'm quite sure he was re
David Gilbert wrote:
This isn't random. As I understand the issue, the Opteron HT bus
handles synchronization much faster. So for a game --- this doesn't
matter ... games don't (usually) need sync. Databases, however, live
on synchonizaton. If you're a Dell man (and already paying the Dell
ta
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:35:06 -0400
David Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Mike" == Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mike> Steven Hartland wrote:
> >> Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
> >> http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
>
>
> "Mike" == Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Steven Hartland wrote:
>> Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
>> http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
Mike> It will be interesting to see how Intels new CPUs (Conroe,
Mike> Woodcrest, etc) will
Hi,
Bill Moran wrote:
We have some database servers that we're looking to replace with
beefier hardware, mainly because we're expecting our customer base
to grow a lot in the near future.
The current hw is Dell 2850 servers. These are dual proc (each proc
is hyperthreaded) with Dell PERC cont
Yes I was going to point out a article from Anandtech as well.
Its an older one but someone on Anandtech is a SQL performance article
benchmarking different server CPUs on Database performance.
It concluded that large CPU cache is very important for Databases.
Basically said having a large CPU
> Our current Dells have 2M cache, and I'm trying to determine
> whether the 8M cache will make a significant difference or
> not. Can someone recommend a testing procedure for
> determining whether adding cache is worthwhile or not?
> I can simulate a test load at any time, but I don't know how
>
Steven Hartland wrote:
Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
It will be interesting to see how Intels new CPUs (Conroe, Woodcrest,
etc) will perform. From initial gaming benchmarks, they seems to
outperform the curren
Forget Intel and go for AMD who beat them hands down for DB work:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2745
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Our current Dells have 2M cache, and I'm trying to determine whether
the 8M cache will make a significant diffe
Shane Ambler wrote:
On 25/4/2006 22:37, "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[First off, the list archives for this list don't seem to be
searchable. I get the following error:
Unable to read document excerpts
'/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/freebsd-performance/htdig/db.excerpts'
Did y
On 25/4/2006 22:37, "Bill Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [First off, the list archives for this list don't seem to be
> searchable. I get the following error:
> Unable to read document excerpts
> '/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/freebsd-performance/htdig/db.excerpts'
> Did you run htd
[First off, the list archives for this list don't seem to be
searchable. I get the following error:
Unable to read document excerpts
'/usr/local/mailman/archives/private/freebsd-performance/htdig/db.excerpts'
Did you run htdig?]
So ... on to the question.
We have some database servers that we'
31 matches
Mail list logo
