Was [Gllug] Best option for a lot of compute power

[Luke Hopkins]

Following on from this (a little more OT), whats the consensus on
performance differences between Ultra 320 SCSI & SATA 150?
I realise these are bus speeds, but how about running 2 disks per bus,
could these speeds be reached?

Thanks
Luke

-----Original Message-----
From: gllug-bounces at gllug.org.uk [mailto:gllug-bounces at gllug.org.uk] On
Behalf Of Daniel P. Berrange
Sent: 08 June 2004 11:09
To: Greater London Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: Was [Gllug] Best option for a lot of compute power


On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:58:55AM +0100, David Goodwin wrote:
> Luke Hopkins wrote:
> >Have been following this thread with interest. We run web services
which
> >are very db & disk intensive.
> >We had planned on ordering some Dell 1750's (XEON with HT), but the
> >concensus seems to be that's not the best option?
> >Would opterons be better for this purpose? Would we then need to run
a
> >64 bit OS? Reccomendations?
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> You don't need to use a 64 bit O/S for opterons - I've installed the 
> standard x86 SLES8 on one with no problems. If you do use a 64bit 
> version O/S you gain the advantage of being able to access more memory
etc.

More importantly you'll eliminate the highmem mapping overhead which
with a standard 1GB/3GB split is 3-4%, with a .05/3.5GB split can
be even higher. If you need a single process to address > 3.5 GB
of memory you've no choice but to go 64bit.

Dan.
-- 
|=-            GPG key: http://www.berrange.com/~dan/gpgkey.txt
-=|
|=-       Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/
-=|
|=-           Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/
-=|
|=-   berrange at redhat.com  -  Daniel Berrange  -  dan at berrange.com
-=|


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug