I jsut got my first two and got them setup... they are NICE!!!!!!!!

Nope... just got a few thousand dual xeons... far superior

hah

rub it in some more!

Your the one with a monster... you rub it in



.... Shame it runs windows.

send me some!

On the bright side 1/2 of them run a real server OS

But it's still a shame that half of them don't run a real OS.

"send me some!"
I'll take one too... and run a REAL OS on it :-)

I am tempted to try one of the monsters. But do you think it can possibly handle the same number of web sites as 3 dual xeons (roughly the same price)?

Are the 8 scsi disks hot swap in case of failure of one? if so, that is really a big advantage, because with the 2 scsi disks in the dual xeons if you need to replace a disk you get hours of downtime and you loose data up to the previous night's backup.

It really depends on the control panel, or if you have none. Most of the panels do not really like to hold a lot of users. We are working on a cPanel clustering solution that should be much more efficient but it would require more servers. Even with cPanel when you start getting above 500-750 and really above 1000 it starts to bog down with stuff like email/stats.

About to purchase one of these myself and make a move back to EV1. Custom orders has been great and it will be nice to rejoin the likes of all of you...well most

Real OS = Are you referring to Linux or FreeBSD?

I'm considering one of these too. Can it be added to a private rack? Can cPanel be put on it?

Yes and yes

Yippiee! I just submitted a ticket over at TSS requesting help on this eth00.

Much thanks!

already reply

waiting for the login info

I'm getting ready to deploy 2 new servers in Europe and my sever config is as follows;

DC: Colocation in Brussells - Very fast network.
Supermicro server 1U 5013 C-T
Rack mount 20
http://www.supermicro.nl/products/system/1...SYS-5013C-T.cfm
Pentium 4 - 2x3.0 630 (2mb cache)
4 GB DDR-2 ECC RAM
2x SATA-2 200GB HDD Hot Swappable
Raid 1
Cpanel + FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x modified.

Can the monsters can touch these in performance or speed? Sorry EV1. I'm expanding overseas and at $119.00 per mth (Special Deal) this is a steal!!!

Can you guys believe the evoloution of this place!?!?....

I remember when "Rackshack" was a colo using fenced space in someone else's DC.... then we all moved our servers to DC1 via van and held our breath as the night unfolded and we waited for our boxes to come back online....

HS and this company are truly an American success story in progress...

Listen to your consumers, give them what they ask for (and more) and they will come in droves..

I'm still a little fish, happy with my rather basic setup but.. it's nice to know that if things change for me, I can stay here and move up, then up further, then yet farther and still stay here at home in the company of such nice folks...

Robert Marsh, you're the best man... simply the best!

Shortz

Er.. and why do you think your mico server, with 4GB RAM, and 2 Sata drives would be faster than a Dual Core, with 8GB RAM, and 10 SCSI drives?

Correct me if im wrong but according to what I'v read dual core only benefits when attempting to caclulate high arithmetic performance using software such as CAD/CAM and audio or video processing benefiting particularly from a second processor core.

Relatively, little multithreaded software is used on standard office and home computers, so the purchase of a high-end dual core processor is rarely justified. So is the case in the hosting world. Where would you benefit?

I could probably place this box side by side with a dual core and have it outperform or come close to its performance level even at 4GB. But memory would not be the only deciding factor in determining preformance bottlenecks and would not impact the relationship between how both server would preform in a head to head match. Disk drive performance coupled with the types of drives, dual CPU's and internal cache would. My point being, how would you benefit from the dual core P4 2.8 processor as opposed to a dual P4 3.0 when the above reasons why a dual core processor would even benefit you in a hosting enviroment??

And the difference between SATA and SCSI in terms of general performance on a server, well i dont think you would notice much of a difference in speed or performance in the hosting world so i cant see the price justification there.
SCSI drives and controllers are ridiculously expensive for their marginal performance lead over ATA drive.

Now this is my understand of dual core. And at $119.00 mnth, the price is truely amazing!

This isn't hyperthreading, each core is its own processor which most hosting programs can take full advantage of..

Do a ps -ax and look at how many proccesses you have running, How many Mysql processes? How many httpd processes?

Each process takes up cpu time, more more cpus/cores you have the more processes you can handle.

SCSI vs SATA, I halfway agree here, unless your running a database heavy site you won't see a large improvement.. Now if you require database speed SCSI is the way to go ( I manage box with scsi and 16gb ram, going from 10k to 15k was noticable )

Definitely disagree with you 100% there. The difference in performance between 15k and 10k scsi drives and 7200 sata drives is substantial. Maybe the wd raptors deliver a decent performance, but they're not that cheap... and I still would put a 15k II or cheatah 15k up against a sata drive any day. I suppose if you can cache everything in memory you're good to go, but my hosting servers have always been disk io limited before being cpu limited.

Right. RAM is also extremely important as Linux is good at caching.

However, I'm still waiting for the new 10000 RPM SATA2 drives. Those raptor SATA drives are already competing with the SCSI ones because they have a faster transfer rate. SCSI is extremely fast at seeking but their transfer rates are not that great.

If I could build a dream server, I would use a fast SATA drive for the operating system as well as files. And then SCSI for the MySQL databases.

Took the plunge and finally placed my order for a monster with my private rack.

Dual Xeon Dual Core 2.8
+ 12gb ram
+ 2 x 73gb SCSI in RAID-1
+ 8 x 300gb SCSI hd in RAID 0+1

Can't wait to play with my new toy...

I will try to find the link but IBM did some research for RAID 5 vs. RAID 1+0. If I remember correctly (about a 50% chance there), once RAID 5 had 6 or more drives it began to be on par with RAID 1+0 in both read/write performance. This is of course using a good hardware RAID controller with RAM on-board.


We recently switched a Quad Opteron DB box from RAID 1+0 using 8 SATA 10K RPM drive to using a RAID 1 (OS) and RAID 5 array using 15K SCSI drives. Disk IO issues dropped considerably.

These monster boxes will be good for systems requiring very high processing levels.

For shared hosting, I would consider it less risky to have 4 lower end systems than 1 large one. If your monster box dies a hard death, all of your clients are impacted.