dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Harr » Mon, 18 Feb 2002 05:23:35



Hi,

I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

My existing (NT/IIS)server is a DUAL celeron abit motherboard with 2
400Mhz CELERONs and 512M of ECC RAM. This board MAXs out at celeron
500's which I cant even find so let's assume the dual processors will
STAY at 400Mhz.

The testing box I am using at home is a 815 Intel motherboard (Solano
544 BGA chipset) with a single FC-PGA processor. Right not there is a
celeron 766 in there - I can goto 1Ghz.

Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

thanks for your thoughts
harry at emailharry dot com

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Juha Laih » Mon, 18 Feb 2002 07:16:24



Quote:>I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
>do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
>a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

>My existing (NT/IIS)server is a DUAL celeron abit motherboard with 2
>400Mhz CELERONs and 512M of ECC RAM. This board MAXs out at celeron
>500's which I cant even find so let's assume the dual processors will
>STAY at 400Mhz.

So, is the NT/IIS running the same site you plan to run with
Linux/Apache? Are your CPUs fully utilised at the moment (with NT/IIS)?
If not, I don't see why your CPUs would be the limiting factor with
Apache/Linux setup, either. If you're close to fully using the CPU
capacity, you might see what documents exist on tuning Apache for
performance.

Also, depending on your web content, the bottleneck might well be
elsewhere. Your network connection? You disks? Amount of RAM?

Quote:>Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
>board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

BIOS does not play a role. Faster RAM might help, but not by much.
ECC RAM brings you stability and correct operation - ECC means that
the memory can correct single-bit errors (in a 32-bit word, I think)
and reliably detect two-bit errors. Without ECC, if an error happens,
something goes wrong (from an end user seeing 'b' where they expected
'a' to the server crashing without any "good" reason).

Quote:>SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
>celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

The aggregate CPU performance seems to be roughly the same; I don't
know enough to say what the dual-CPU setup makes to memory bandwidth;
my guess is "nothing". But then again, do you have a bottleneck, and
if so, what is it? It is no use comparing CPUs if they can easily
swamp some other part of the system.
--
Wolf  a.k.a.  Juha Laiho     Espoo, Finland

         PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by ctr2s.. » Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:18:56



> I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
> do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
> a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

[...]

Quote:> Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
> board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

Quote:> SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
you which will be better _for your particular situation_.

--

"I woke up this morning and realized what the game needed: pirates,
pimps, and gay furries."  - Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by ctr2s.. » Mon, 18 Feb 2002 12:22:45



> >SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> >celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?
> The aggregate CPU performance seems to be roughly the same; I don't
> know enough to say what the dual-CPU setup makes to memory bandwidth;
> my guess is "nothing".

That's going to be correct for any low-end SMP system, I think.
Benchmarks suggest that the P4s are able to take advantage of the fast
memory bus, which sounds impressive until you realize that regular P4s
use at most _half_ the memory bus bandwidth.

High-end SMP systems supposedly have features like dedicated memory
bus routes for each processor.  I think the ServerWorks HE chipsets do
that.

--

"I woke up this morning and realized what the game needed: pirates,
pimps, and gay furries."  - Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Ed Clar » Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:19:40



>ECC RAM brings you stability and correct operation - ECC means that
>the memory can correct single-bit errors (in a 32-bit word, I think)
>and reliably detect two-bit errors. Without ECC, if an error happens,
>something goes wrong (from an end user seeing 'b' where they expected
>'a' to the server crashing without any "good" reason).

Ha!  That's if you're lucky.  I once had a bad bit in exactly the wrong
spot (on an MPM system).  It was in the ram copy of the disk allocation
table.  The bit said the block was free... and I copied most of a hard
disk into that one block.  This was in the days when a 29 megabyte hard
disk had 14 inch platters and took about a kilowatt to spin up.  This
was before the 8086/8088 came in from Intel.  I was using a Z80 cpu.

Although the memory costs more and might be slower, ECC is a worthwhile
investment if you're doing anything other than playing on your machine.

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Harr » Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:58:58


HI,

Thanks for staying on topic and getting to the answers. There is no
bottleneck I am trying to address. I am trying to get off of the bill
gates train is all....

TO answer your question of server's duties: At this moment, I am
planning nothing more than PHP pages and MySQL along with apache and
sendmail activity.

The whole reason for posting my original note was to make the decision
which box stays at the colo shop. The simplest thing for me to do is
get the newer box ready and swap it with the current NT box running
now.

I wanted to know was it worth the hassle I am sure to see if I decide
to swap the HARDDRIVES only - thus making the linux system awake
inside a whole new box.  I am expecting to see some complaints from
the OS when I do that. If the posting replies were unanimous that the
dual celerons and the ECC offer nothing, then I might choose to skip
that tactic.

As it stands for now, it looks like I am going to try my best to make
the linux harddrive come to life inside the dual celeron box.

thanks again,
Harry at emailharry dot com



> > I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
> > do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
> > a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

> In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
> applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
> have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
> minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
> may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

> Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
> improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
> RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
> power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

> [...]
> > Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
> > board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

> Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

> > SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> > celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

> It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
> details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
> you which will be better _for your particular situation_.

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Skylar Thompso » Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:54:09



> Although the memory costs more and might be slower, ECC is a worthwhile
> investment if you're doing anything other than playing on your machine.

How much slower is ECC RAM than normal, unparitied RAM? Specifically, how
much slower is PC100 ECC-SDRAM than normal PC100 SDRAM? Is there a website
with those benchmarks?

--

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Mark LaPierr » Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:36:36


Hi Harry,

You might have to rebuild or upgrade your kernel to enable SMP support if you
want your old Linux installation to recognize the additional CPU.

Mark LaPierre


> HI,

> Thanks for staying on topic and getting to the answers. There is no
> bottleneck I am trying to address. I am trying to get off of the bill
> gates train is all....

> TO answer your question of server's duties: At this moment, I am
> planning nothing more than PHP pages and MySQL along with apache and
> sendmail activity.

> The whole reason for posting my original note was to make the decision
> which box stays at the colo shop. The simplest thing for me to do is
> get the newer box ready and swap it with the current NT box running
> now.

> I wanted to know was it worth the hassle I am sure to see if I decide
> to swap the HARDDRIVES only - thus making the linux system awake
> inside a whole new box.  I am expecting to see some complaints from
> the OS when I do that. If the posting replies were unanimous that the
> dual celerons and the ECC offer nothing, then I might choose to skip
> that tactic.

> As it stands for now, it looks like I am going to try my best to make
> the linux harddrive come to life insid

e the dual celeron box.

- Show quoted text -

> thanks again,
> Harry at emailharry dot com



> > > I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
> > > do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
> > > a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

> > In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
> > applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
> > have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
> > minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
> > may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

> > Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
> > improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
> > RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
> > power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

> > [...]
> > > Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
> > > board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

> > Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

> > > SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> > > celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

> > It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
> > details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
> > you which will be better _for your particular situation_.

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Tech » Fri, 08 Mar 2002 02:01:41



> Hi Harry,

> You might have to rebuild or upgrade your kernel to enable SMP support if
> you want your old Linux installation to recognize the additional CPU.

> Mark LaPierre


>> HI,

>> Thanks for staying on topic and getting to the answers. There is no
>> bottleneck I am trying to address. I am trying to get off of the bill
>> gates train is all....

>> TO answer your question of server's duties: At this moment, I am
>> planning nothing more than PHP pages and MySQL along with apache and
>> sendmail activity.

>> The whole reason for posting my original note was to make the decision
>> which box stays at the colo shop. The simplest thing for me to do is
>> get the newer box ready and swap it with the current NT box running
>> now.

>> I wanted to know was it worth the hassle I am sure to see if I decide
>> to swap the HARDDRIVES only - thus making the linux system awake
>> inside a whole new box.  I am expecting to see some complaints from
>> the OS when I do that. If the posting replies were unanimous that the
>> dual celerons and the ECC offer nothing, then I might choose to skip
>> that tactic.

>> As it stands for now, it looks like I am going to try my best to make
>> the linux harddrive come to life insid
> e the dual celeron box.

>> thanks again,
>> Harry at emailharry dot com



>> > > I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a
>> > > nutshell, do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache
>> > > server than a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

>> > In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
>> > applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
>> > have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
>> > minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
>> > may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

>> > Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
>> > improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
>> > RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
>> > power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

>> > [...]
>> > > Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older
>> > > ABit board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a
>> > > plus?)

>> > Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

>> > > SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
>> > > celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

>> > It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
>> > details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
>> > you which will be better _for your particular situation_.

My two cents worth would be to remove the second processor and get on with
it.

;-)

Tech

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by linuxuse » Fri, 08 Mar 2002 07:18:19


Linux can support upto 8 processors. In the windows world WindowsXP home
only supports one and Windows XP pro supports two. As for what NT and 2000
supports I don't really care because micro$oft stuff is always pretty much
buggy and total crap..

Yes, Linux and all BSDs will take advantage of the dual and more boards!

Way to go getting off the gates train! I am doing the same..


> HI,

> Thanks for staying on topic and getting to the answers. There is no
> bottleneck I am trying to address. I am trying to get off of the bill
> gates train is all....

> TO answer your question of server's duties: At this moment, I am
> planning nothing more than PHP pages and MySQL along with apache and
> sendmail activity.

> The whole reason for posting my original note was to make the decision
> which box stays at the colo shop. The simplest thing for me to do is
> get the newer box ready and swap it with the current NT box running
> now.

> I wanted to know was it worth the hassle I am sure to see if I decide
> to swap the HARDDRIVES only - thus making the linux system awake
> inside a whole new box.  I am expecting to see some complaints from
> the OS when I do that. If the posting replies were unanimous that the
> dual celerons and the ECC offer nothing, then I might choose to skip
> that tactic.

> As it stands for now, it looks like I am going to try my best to make
> the linux harddrive come to life inside the dual celeron box.

> thanks again,
> Harry at emailharry dot com



> > > I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
> > > do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
> > > a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

> > In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
> > applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
> > have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
> > minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
> > may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

> > Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
> > improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
> > RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
> > power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

> > [...]
> > > Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
> > > board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

> > Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

> > > SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> > > celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

> > It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
> > details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
> > you which will be better _for your particular situation_.

 
 
 

dual cpu vs single cpu for apache

Post by Admi » Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:26:22




> > I plan to run a (redhat v7.2 linux) apache server soon. In a nutshell,
> > do dual 400 celerons have anything more to offer an apache server than
> > a single 1Ghz celeron FC-PGA does?

> In a nutshell?  Yes, unless you are running really processor-intensive
> applications.  But you won't really see that improvement unless you
> have two or more concurrent requests.  If you are getting 10 hits a
> minute, that works out to an average of a hit every 6 seconds - you
> may see an improvement, but it won't be a big one.

> Not until you get over 60 hits a minute will you start to see a big
> improvement.  And remember that you are probably going to run out of
> RAM, disk speed, or network bandwidth well before you run out of CPU
> power: serving even dynamic pages is not exactly CPU-intensive.

We tested our web servers with about 5 hits per second (300 hits per minute)
and the CPU usage rarely goes beyond 5%.  However, a faster CPU gives better
responses at high loads.  Web data stored on Flash also helps.

Our setup:
900 MHz Celeron, 256M SDRAM, 16M Flash, 1.5M (T1) network.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> [...]
> > Obviously the newer 815 MB has all sorts of pluses over the older ABit
> > board. (133 ram,newer bios etc). (is the older boards ECC RAM a plus?)

> Yes, ECC RAM is a plus.  Not a huge one, though.

> > SO in this hardware novices opinion, the issue is - is the dual 400
> > celeron processors feature something worthwhile to an apache server?

> It's something worthwhile, no question.  But you need to provide more
> details on what exactly your Apache will be doing before we can tell
> you which will be better _for your particular situation_.