Alright. Let me start out by saying that I want to run 2-3 counter-strike source instances only. I want one of those instances to have it's own core/proc because it will be a 60 man server (quite large for css). Now I've spoken with a few techs, but I'm still not certain which of the following packages would be better for hosting 1 large css instance on it's own core/proc. I'm therefore asking TP forum regs for input.

Server #1: Dual Xeon Series - IDE
-Intel Dual Xeon 2.8GHz Processor
-ECC Registered 2048 MB RAM
-2 x 80GB Hard Drive
-2500 Gigs
-$219/month (Promotion Price)

Server #2: Kentsfield 3210 Series - SATA
-Intel Xeon 3210 Quad Core Kentsfield Processor (2.13GHz)
-2048 MB RAM
-250GB Hard Drive
-2500 Gigs
-$259/month

Server #3: Conroe 3060 Series - SAS
-Intel Xeon 3060 Dual Core Conroe Processor (2.4GHz)
-2048 MB RAM
-146GB, 10K RPM SCSI/SAS Hard Drive
-2500 Gigs
-$219/month

Now the one tech that I spoke too told me to go with either the Kentsfield or Conroe, mainly because they're fairly new compared to the xeon 2.8. However, I'm steering towards the 2.8 ghz mainly because it's got a higher frequency-per-core than the other machines. Since css is single-threaded, I'm guessing that a 60 man css server would have more breathing room on one core of a xeon 2.8 ghz than on one core of the other machines.

I currently have a xeon 3220 (2.4GHz quad-core, single-proc) with http://www.softlayer.com. It does not have the power to run a full 60 man css server on one core. This leads me to think that the 2.8GHz package here at TP is the way to go.

What do you think guys? Any input is highly appreciated!

-Ian

I vote for Server #3. Faster drives should provide a little smoother operation.

Thanks for the input. But now wouldn't the 2.8 be better for single-threaded applications like a counter-strike: source game server?

No. The dual Xeon 2.8 are old architecture and their cores are poor performers compared to the Conroe. That 2.4 Ghz Conroe will run circles around that dual Xeon.

Alright so the Conroe 3060 with the +2gigs ram/free setup deal for $219/month. I'd run a 50-56 man server on one core, and the other will be wild card. Sound good guys?

It seems odd that the current setup you have at SL can't run what you want.

I would strongly recommend you avoid those older Xeons. Don't be fooled by higher clock speeds. There is a lot more to a processor than its speed. Do your homework and also take into account: Cache Sizes, Architecture, FSB Speed, and Age of the processor.

eg:
Older Xeon: L2 Cache is most likely 512 KB
Conroe: L2 Cache is 4MB total, 2MB per core.

I would go with server #3 because it has a very solid and reliable processor. The hard drive it also has is an excellent option, would love to get my hands on one of those. There will be plenty of RAM to run whatever you need, including large CSS servers.

Thanks for your help guys. I've decided to go with Server #3 based on the input you guys gave me. If all goes as planned, I'll be ordering the server in a few hours.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but I have a question about your guys recommendation. Mainly because I have the exact same decision to make about those same exact servers.

Is there a reason you recommended the duel core 3060 over the quad core Kentsfield? Is it mainly because of his application?

I have a customer that has a very strong mysql database driven site. He gets 50-100 database queries per second, and he is absolutely killing the older server he is on (2.4GHZ 1GB Ram and only 256k cache). So I need to upgrade him fairly quickly to one of these servers, but am having a tough time deciding on which one to go with.

In this case, I am guessing that it was a mix of slightly lower cost and improved HDD performance. If processing power trumps disk performance, I think the Kentsfield is the right choice.

I would recommend the 3060 over the Kentsfield because he partially doesn't need the quad core design for an application that can only take advantage of one core.

Based purely on the specs they are the processors, except for the Kentsfield Intel took two Conroes and put them on the same die but decreased the clock speed for the particular model The Planet offers.

3060 65 nm 4 MB L2 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz Dual Core

X3210 65 nm 8 MB L2 2.13 GHz 1066 MHz Quad Core

With such a large CSS server I would recommend a solid processor, with a higher the better operating frequency. He then care tie the large CSS instance to one core, and his other two servers to the other core.

Ok, but how about a mysql application? From what I ready, msyql in a linux environment does take advantage of multiple threads? So in that case, would the quad core be more of an advantage? I'm just trying to find out what the best option would be for my customer as well.

Or am I wrong about Mysql using multiple threads? I just read somewhere that it does, but I'm just trying to confirm from anyone that might have experience.

For MySQL, I'd say option #2 with a RAID 10(or 5).

RAID 10 will provide a bit speedier response(and quick recovery from HDD failures). Drive speed is pretty essential in a heavy use DB. If you're using alot of joins and subqueries, the procs will help out there.


(RAID is not a good replacement for off-server backup)

Thanks for the informaiton. Most of his database queries are just basic queries, but he does use the LIKE command a lot unfortunately. And some of his tables are in the millions of records. But I think most of his particular problem is the sheer number of queries done each second. I've seen it spike upwards of 100 queries per second.

I'm not seeing the kentsfield server with a raid option on the home page, so I guess I'm not sure of the price. It is probably out of my customers price range though. Do you think it would still perform well with just one of the 10k SCSI/SAS drives?

One 10k drive will probably be good.

Talking with one of our sales guys can possibly open up opportunities which we're not able to offer on the order pages.

In your situation things are a bit different. The previous person was hosting Gaming servers which require slightly different setups to perform at their best ability than does a server for pure web hosting.

Judging by the information you gave us the same server would be sufficient for your needs. Going with the Quad Core wouldn't hurt though if your budget had the option, but I would recommend changing the drive to a SCSI drive if you were to choose the Quad Core as it comes with a SATA drive by default.

As for price, this is what I dredged out of the website sales process:

Kentsfield 3210 Series - SAS
Intel Xeon 3210 Quad Core Kentsfield Processor
146GB, 10K RPM SCSI/SAS Hard Drive
2048 MB RAM
2500 GB Bandwidth
10 IPs
100 Mbps Uplink
$309.00/month

Raid would add $50 a month for the drive controller, and then more per which hard drives you went with ($60 a month for another 146GB, 10K RPM SCSI/SAS Hard Drive). You can see it quickly becomes a pricey affair depending on your budget.

But if RAID were a requirement, and you were willing to sacrifice running the speed of SAS (which I wouldn't do) you could go with this:

Conroe 3060 Series - RAID
Intel Xeon 3060 Dual Core Conroe Processor
4 x 250GB Hard Drive in (RAID 10 I think)
2048 MB RAM
2500 GB Bandwidth
10 IPs
100 Mbps Uplink
$299.00/month

Talk to Sales and see what they say. Always good to get another opinion.