Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Interests > Tilted Technology


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-24-2003, 10:19 AM   #1 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
TFP: Project Oscar

We are looking for a new server. Please post links/quotes/suggestions for the following server specifications:

4u (or smaller) rackmount case
quad CPU motherboard with 133mhz or faster bus, built-in LAN/Video
4x 2.6ghz processors
2x 10K rpm 30gb SCSI drives with RAID controller
4gb registered ECC DDR RAM
...and a cd-rom

If I missed anything, it's because I haven't messed around with hardware in a while.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Last edited by Halx; 06-24-2003 at 10:34 AM..
Halx is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 01:42 AM   #3 (permalink)
Psycho
 
cheese's Avatar
 
Location: In your bath tub with all your other rubber toys
that kind of hardware is gonna cost ya

i found www.rackservers.com and i did a config to your specs

rackservers.com
Unit 9 Saxon Business Park, Windsor Avenue,
Wimbledon, London SW19 2RR
Tel: 020 8544 0022 Fax: 020 8544 1001
email: sales@rackservers.com
web: www.rackservers.com
Date:
Quote Ref:
25 June 2003
S4802
Quotation for 1 Unit(s)
Component
Specification
Motherboard
Quad Intel Xeon,[P4QH8],6x 64bit PCI-X, 2x Ultra320 SCSI ,ZCR PCI Raid,Video,Intel 10/100
Chipset
Serverworks GC-HE
Info
6 x PCI (Total);0 x AGP;All PCI = 6x PCI-X
Ports
2 x USB V1.0 (Rear), PS/2 Keyb, Mouse
Maximum RAM
32GB = 16 x 2GB (Uses 4 Way Interleaving)
On-board Graphics
8 MB
On-board SCSI
2x68 pin Ultra320 [Adaptec 7902]
On-board RAID
Embedded Intel RAIDIOS [requires PCI ZCR board]
On-board LAN
1 x 10/100 Intel Ethernet
On-board Audio
No
CPU
4 x Intel Xeon 2.0GHz MP, 256k L2 and 2MB L3 Cache
RAM
4,096 MB Total using 4 x 1GB PC2100 DDR Reg. ECC [Use only in groups of Four]
SCSI HDD
2 x 36GB 10,000 rpm Ultra160
RAID Controller
Embedded Intel RAIDIOS [requires PCI ZCR board] on-board motherboard
SCSI Controller
2x68 pin Ultra320 [Adaptec 7902] on-board motherboard
CD / DVD
Slim IDE CD included with case
Rack Casing
4U S862,Quad Xeon,4xSCA Hot swop,660MM Deep,Slim CD,FD,3xRedundant PSU(700W) (White)
Rail Kit
Telescopic Rail Kit included with case
Ethernet 1
1 x Intel PRO/1000MT Gigabit 32Bit PCI Adapter
Ethernet 2
None
Backup/CDR
None
Graphics
8 MB graphics on-board motherboard
FDD
Slim FDD included with case
Operating System
None
Maintenance
1 year return to base, all parts and labour
Unit Price ex. VAT

£ 18,296.00
VAT

£ 3,201.80
Total including VAT

£ 21,497.80
VAT to be added to all prices. Terms and conditions apply.
This quotation is valid for up to 7 days from first quotation date.



that comes out to 35,781.73 USD
THATS ALOT OF F'n money

Last edited by cheese; 06-25-2003 at 02:01 AM..
cheese is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 05:07 AM   #4 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Wisconsin, USA
I'd stay away from Aberdeen if possible, just because they are so expensive. I've had a lot of success ordering from www.mwave.com and www.tcwo.com

I'd consider a larger RAID too as in more drives, plus a mirror (RAID 0+1) The striping will help greatly when people download from your system.

I haven't built a server for this kind of use, but I have to question the benefit of a quad board. Are you sure you'd really see a significant benefit from this. Seems to me like bandwith is your largest hurdle??.
mtsgsd is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 05:45 AM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Wisconsin, USA
I just talked to our PC guru and he agrees that the quad processor will be a waste of money. Dual will give you some advantage, but that's really all that would be practical. Note too that the quad board will use Xeon processors.

The Ram and your drives will be the biggest bottle neck, along with the speed of your connection to the internet.
mtsgsd is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 06:26 AM   #6 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
I second that. It really doesn't take much CPU grunt to serve web pages. It's usually the onboard bus, drives, and network connection that's the bottleneck. Even a double-processor box might be putting your money in the wrong place.

Look for hardware RAID over SCSI, double-speed ram, and a place to host that offers a Gig-E connection.

Where IS the TFP server hosted, anyway? I assume you colocate?
ratbastid is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 06:58 AM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Another note about the RAID. There really isn't that much advantage to going SCSI anymore except in one area. If you need a lot of drives hooked up, or hooked up in a separate box, you have to go scsi since IDE is limited to 2 devices per port, and 18" max cable length (and yet vendors sell 24" cables ).

IDE is just about as fast, and a whole lot cheaper. 3rd party RAID cards can give you the ability to stripe more drives than what you'd be limited to with an onboard controller, and you have the ability to swap it out later if it breaks or becomes obsolete. Serial ATA is the next big thing, and will give you the daisy chaining ability of SCSI, but it's very new and expensive. Not to mention hard to find.
mtsgsd is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 07:23 AM   #8 (permalink)
ARRRRRRRRRR
 
shalafi's Avatar
 
Location: Stuart, Florida
Quote:
Originally posted by mtsgsd
I'd stay away from Aberdeen if possible, just because they are so expensive. I've had a lot of success ordering from www.mwave.com and www.tcwo.com
Ive dealt w/ TCWO at the company i used to work for. They usually have good prices but will sometimes try to fuck you on warranty replacements
shalafi is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 08:20 AM   #9 (permalink)
Please touch this.
 
Halx's Avatar
 
Owner/Admin
Location: Manhattan
guys, FYI, the TFP's current traffic is bringing the CPUs to their knees. Dual 1.8Ghz, 2gb ECC DDR RAM. The TFP isn't just serving webpages. It's serving server-side scripts.
__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]
Halx is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 10:08 AM   #10 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Ok, faster cpus are called for, but extra ones aren't necessarily going to help.
mtsgsd is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 03:44 PM   #11 (permalink)
Tilted
 
pogolinux.com gave me wonderful workstation. they also do servers, but I'm not sure of their competitive pricyness in that region.
sweeze is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 08:48 PM   #12 (permalink)
Tilted
 
you could also look into load balancing server requests between multiple machines all mirroring the same information. not sure how dirty you have to go to get that though, but I know some of the sites i've worked on have done that in order to serve their million+ users
sweeze is offline  
Old 06-25-2003, 11:01 PM   #13 (permalink)
Psychopathic Akimbo Action Pirate
 
Location: ...between Christ and Belial.
I'd do some CPU time monitoring.

But without even doing so, I'd guess the search function on TFP takes up tons of that CPU time. Perhaps extending search interval limit could temporarily aid the server's disposition.

Hell, maybe you could even make it so non-contributing members can't search? I don't know if vB will let you limit by post count like that, though.
__________________
On the outside I'm jazz, but my soul is rock and roll.

Sleep is a waste of time. Join the Insomniac Club.
"GYOH GWAH-DAH GREH BLAAA! SROH WIH DIH FLIH RYOHH!!" - The Locust
Antagony is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 05:37 AM   #14 (permalink)
Psycho
 
cheese's Avatar
 
Location: In your bath tub with all your other rubber toys
Hal. hears a question. howmuch you looking to spend?
cheese is offline  
Old 06-26-2003, 06:02 AM   #15 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Central N.Y.
Set up a Beowulf cluster; that'll compete with a Cray if you configure it right.
__________________
"If I had it to do all over,
I'd do it all over you."
bullgoose is offline  
Old 06-27-2003, 02:17 AM   #16 (permalink)
Tilted
 
I agree with sweeze. Load balance. Scale out. (Plus point can load balance network traffic also).

Scaling up for web apps not really a cost effective thing.

Good luck.
whale is offline  
Old 06-28-2003, 06:10 PM   #17 (permalink)
Insane
 
Jolt's Avatar
 
Location: Over here
Quote:
Originally posted by mtsgsd
Another note about the RAID. There really isn't that much advantage to going SCSI anymore except in one area. If you need a lot of drives hooked up, or hooked up in a separate box, you have to go scsi since IDE is limited to 2 devices per port, and 18" max cable length (and yet vendors sell 24" cables ).

IDE is just about as fast, and a whole lot cheaper. 3rd party RAID cards can give you the ability to stripe more drives than what you'd be limited to with an onboard controller, and you have the ability to swap it out later if it breaks or becomes obsolete. Serial ATA is the next big thing, and will give you the daisy chaining ability of SCSI, but it's very new and expensive. Not to mention hard to find.
Bzzzt...*WRONG*

IDE drives and controllers max out at 133MB/sec; even SATA only does 150MB/sec. Currently shipping SCSI gear does 160 and 320mb/sec. Mind, these are maximum -burst- speeds between controller and disk only. The difference is truly realized when you consider that IDE I/O uses more CPU time/system resources than SCSI to get the same amount of work done.

SATA controllers do not support daisy-chained devices; one drive per cable only. The same goes for most IDE (now also being called "Parallel ATA") RAID solutions, such as 3Ware & Promise.

The only reason to choose an IDE or SATA RAID solution over SCSI is not being able to afford the higher price that better technology is well worth.

Most of the IDE/SATA hard disks on the market are consumer-grade mechanisms; most of the SCSI disks are designed and engineered to work in more demanding environments. They will last longer and can better handle higher workloads.

(I -am- quite anxious to check out WD's new Raptor 360 disk, because it is being touted as the first legitimate server-grade SATA mechanism...)

Back to the topic at hand...for this Quad Xeon solution...
Retail, you should expect to pay something in the range of

4000-4500 for an Intel SRSH4 'Shasta' base unit, see link 1 below
1500-6000 for -EACH- CPU
1000-1500 for the memory
500-600 for the disks.

Also, Xeon MP CPU's presently only go up to 2.0 GHz, unlike the DP which go up to 3.06...see link 2.

Link 1: http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/rese...iefs/44739.htm

Link 2: http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/rese.../faq/35968.htm
Jolt is offline  
 

Tags
oscar, project, tfp


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360