From owner-freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Thu Feb 16 13:26:13 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0927ECE19C1 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:26:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF85D1E24 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:26:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DA6208ED for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:20:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from web2 ([10.202.2.212]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:20:53 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=OG 8usHblN3sLSvSGKKbtQs/qm/c=; b=sQOM6fV49Lhtdebc1+tas57XXSerHuz1II NYYl6VQaxP6BsvbjI1M4TA2ayia5ib1C70xt7G3xjK4/wAD83Y90msEoT8HK9G1N GCUpgdYBxVwGCzdk45kfMh54WmDzW/so1CSID/+5zb0SdqErpZnZ7nI0/I2NMygW 54JUIz5NU= X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 1E5D0626CF; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:20:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1487251253.3617889.883003792.66BD1788@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Josh Paetzel To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-7cfc9722 Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:20:53 -0600 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Server performance & enhancement References: X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:26:13 -0000 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017, at 05:20 AM, Karl Denninger wrote: > I'm wondering what people think of a forward path for the following: > > > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 @ 2.40GHz (2400.14-MHz > K8-class CPU) > Origin="GenuineIntel" Id=0x206c2 Family=0x6 Model=0x2c Stepping=2 > > Features=0xbfebfbff > > Features2=0x29ee3ff > AMD Features=0x2c100800 > AMD Features2=0x1 > VT-x: PAT,HLT,MTF,PAUSE,EPT,UG,VPID > TSC: P-state invariant, performance statistics > real memory = 25773998080 (24580 MB) > avail memory = 24915828736 (23761 MB) > Event timer "LAPIC" quality 600 > ACPI APIC Table: <111612 APIC1749> > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 16 CPUs > FreeBSD/SMP: 2 package(s) x 4 core(s) x 2 hardware threads > > The system board is a Supermicro and has embedded IPMI (which I require > for remote admin purposes) on a separate interface. It's plenty fast > but very power-hungry. > > I'm interested in other's experience with various system board options, > and processors, that will return /better /performance and which have a > good history running FreeBSD /but with lower power consumption. > > /Any suggestions welcome. > > -- > Karl Denninger > karl@denninger.net > /The Market Ticker/ > /[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/ > Email had 1 attachment: > + smime.p7s > 4k (application/pkcs7-signature) You could run a single E5-2640v4 CPU which is 10 cores at 2.4Ghz and 90watts. Dual 5620's are 8 cores at 2.4Ghz and 170watts. ** E5 v4 is faster clock for clock than Westmere, so the 2.4Ghz isn't equivalent between the two CPUs. It's somewhere between 2x and 3x more computing power than dual Westmere 5620's, and uses nearly half the power at full load. In practice it will use far less than half the power as E5 is much better at powering down idle cores and so forth than Westmere was. Not to mention single socket, which will reduce your platform cost and power draw there. There's an additional win, in that FreeBSD doesn't scale well with multi-package. As far as motherboards there are a lot of choices, https://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/Xeon_X10_E5.cfm?pg=MB&show=SELECT&type=UP#List_MBD shows a bunch of different PCI and SAS/SATA port and memory configurations. Something in the X10SR family should work well for you. That's the "less than half the power draw" option. You can go with something that has 1/4 the power draw of your current setup, but it will likely be an incremental performance improvement (~25%) -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel