Dual Processors

[scribbler]

Can anyone give me advice on the following.

We have a PIII dell 500 processor 1 gig ram server which runs SBS win 2000, 4 connections to a fairly processor hungry accounting package and other than exchange server for 10 users is used as storage for spreadsheets & word docs. Has an external SLR backup unit

We are looking to upgrade using DELL servers but unsure if there are benefits to be had using 2.8 Dual Processor as opposed to single 2.8 processor board.

 

[jkupski]

For a server running multiple applications (or a demanding multithreaded application) multiple CPUs are definitely a plus--though you won't see a 100% performance improvement. Without more information about your situation, it's impossible to make an informed recomendation either way.

Suggestion: build the machine out as a single CPU box. If you're still having performance issues (and you see that your machine is CPU bound) add the second CPU then.

 

[b346]

Totally agreed with jkupski, going with dual CPU that would be good and maybe add more ram.

We are running a Dell PowerEdge 2450 PIII Dual CUP with 1.5 gig ram and it help.

 

[romlopez]

As said before, with all the applications you run I am just amazed your system hasn't crashed.
Dual processors is inevitable, if you are on a budget, but the server from dell with 1 processor and low amount of RAM and buy the 2nd processor and RAM somewhere else and install it by yourself. (Is easy) And exchange doesn't use much speed on HD, get some good SATA's for that, SCSI is not neccesary, besides SATA is 2* faster than SCSI now (bandwith) but SCSI HD's are faster.

 

[xmsre]

I'd saw go with dual CPUs now.

1. When you have more than 1 CPU, the step revision has to be within 2. You will likely have problems with this if you buy the second CPU later.



2. The MPHAL will load, and you won't have to mess with this later.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;234558

3. IRQs for IO will be processed on the highest numbered CPU, other apps will use the low numbered CPU first. Of course, for CPU hungry applications, you can set processor affinity.

 

[shmoes]

On the same topic but different scenerio..

I'm looking at installing a server at a dental place, and they only run the one main dental application ... the rest would be just images stored.

but there are only 3 clients, with plans to grow to 10 clients .. I'm thinking at this time .. the dual processors are overkill and a waste of $... thoughts?

~Shmoes

 

[jkupski]

I'm thinking at this time .. the dual processors are overkill and a waste of $

Probably. Again, it depends on exactly what the machine is going to be doing--for a simple medical record keeping app that's hosting a few megabytes worth of tables, plus a file server role hosting the images (xrays?) you're talking about, it's almost definitely overkill.

However, is it going to ONLY be running "the one main dental application" or is it going to be something like an SBS2003 server that's functioning as a DC, Exchange Server, SQL, ISA, print server, etc, along with it? If the latter, I'd go with the second CPU (though with only 3-10 clients, it's still probably overkill.)

 

[shmoes]

They aren't even connecting to the net at this point.. and the printer would stay local to the workstations .. you pretty much summed it up in your first paragraph.

~Shmoes

 

[ITbill2]

2nd cpu is overkill...

run c:\winnt\system32\taskmgr.exe

...and watch...see how much time your cpu spends @100%?

clients, yeah no prob, esp when some apps start to get recompiled to use 2 cores...