[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Xeon vs. Opteron
- To: OpenLDAP software list <openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: Xeon vs. Opteron
- From: Leigh Porter <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:51:19 +0000
- Cc: Jonas Helgi Palsson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <B1DA47F1216BC172D6855247@[10.0.0.1]>
- References: <email@example.com> <B1DA47F1216BC172D6855247@[10.0.0.1]>
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
I just have Dell 750s with I think 2.8Ghz Xeons, there are currently 3
of them with Alteon load balancers
in front. To scale I just add more 750s. They are dirt cheap (like Â900
for a server) and IMO this seems a
cheaper and more reliable way of horizontally scaling for read performance.
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, October 31, 2005 2:50 PM +0200 Jonas Helgi Palsson
I have now afew OpenLDAP servers who "just work". But I see that the
used slave node, keeps rather high load and the CPU usage is allmost
constant at 99.9% in our openings hours.
The server is very responsive though...
But as I forsee that we will have more users soon quering against the
servers, I want to upgrade the servers.
Then the question:
Which architecture is better for OpenLDAP: Xeon 3.6GHz or Opteron
Currently I use SLES9 on dual Xeon 2.8GHz.
I did some benchmarking earlier this year for Stanford on our OpenLDAP
setup, comparing a Dell 1850 dual Xeon 3.6GHz system with a dual CPU
dual-core Sun SunFire V40z running at something like 2.6GHz ( I don't
recall the exact clock speed). The AMD was about 15-20% faster than
the Dell in our testing scenario. If that helps any. I think there are
other advantages to the AMD (like the fact it uses a ton less power
than the Xeon's) but that's purely my opinion. ;) And I think the new
AMD line from Sun looks very nice (I plan on getting Stanford's
servers upgraded to some of the new Sun AMD systems later this year or
early next year).
Principal Software Developer
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html