Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:00:09 +0200 From: "G. Mirov" <g.mirov@gmail.com> To: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Johan_Str=F6m?=" <johan@stromnet.se> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Single Core2Duo Quadcore vs. two dualcore Xeon? Message-ID: <c9f2cce70708161000s1a45e499v3b5f2d38dc8fe80e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49E780C3-8AD7-4B59-96E7-FEAF05370E62@stromnet.se> References: <7A201B4E-9B61-4074-93B9-42BD23B35AA9@stromnet.se> <20070815153800.GA28807@cons.org> <4835BBD0-5FA9-4DE3-A60D-B7D04628B229@stromnet.se> <20070816152050.GA34616@cons.org> <49E780C3-8AD7-4B59-96E7-FEAF05370E62@stromnet.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/16/07, Johan Str=F6m <johan@stromnet.se> wrote: > Oh yes, no this is not a fileserver. Mainly web hosting (combined > mysql/php) IMO, a weaker diskless C2D server with at least 4 GB RAM for web hosting and a C2Q server with at least 4 Gb RAM for CPU intensive (mysql, php, tomc= at) processing would be a better combination because it's designed to scale as your demands increase while at the same time you wouldn't be keeping all your eggs in the same basket. When your web server starts maxing out, you can just add more RAM until it's time to add another C2D web server and loa= d balancing (once you have enough servers you could get an F5 BIG-IP). Your C2Q is not likely to max out easily, but if/when it does you won't have to worry about the cost of adding another one. As for storage RAID10 in the C2Q server would be OK at first, but in the lo= ng run I'd get a NAS solution like a NetApp NFS server. Just my $0.02 worth. G. Mirov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c9f2cce70708161000s1a45e499v3b5f2d38dc8fe80e>