[lug] server spec

[karl horlen]

> If you go with Intel I wouldn't get a P4.  I suppose
> they're cheap now.
> But the Core-2 is so much better.  Also, the Xeon
> models are better for
> database work because of all the extra cache even if
> you only have one
> in a single socket.

valid points.

> I'd also look for NCQ on the SATA controller and
> drives.  It can help
> quite a bit in a server situation.  I think CentOS 5
> will support NCQ
> (on some controllers).

i didn't think about that. 

fwiw, i know i'll get pounded for this on the board
but i'm thinking about using two SEPARATE ONBOARD
controllers for my SW raid.  i'm not sure how much
perf boost i'm going to get from the dedicated raid
card at this point (that was pretty much discussed in
a recent thread so i don't really want to start that
debate here).  my rationale is that if the hw card
fails, even if it has multiple ports, i'm screwed. 
using two separate onboard controllers gives me the
cheaper availability i need for now.

> But in the final analysis, if you can't afford
> anything else, go for 4
> GB RAM. Waiting on disk kills performance.

yeah.. forking those apache processes seems to be the
perf killer. i'm looking to beef up the RAM if i can
get the system cost down in other areas.

thanks


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7