Intel CPUs [was: Server questions for 5.1]

At 10:39 AM 11/27/2001, you wrote:
>1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
>P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
>the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
>dual processors.

The Xeon has always been a plain P2 or P3 CPU core. The difference is in
its cache and bus. The Xeon comes in a variety of cache sizes up to 2MB,
and it runs at the full speed of the CPU core. The P2 and older P3 cache
ran at half the core speed. Celerons and later P3s ran the cache at full
core speed, but only with 128 or 256K in 'em.

The bus probably has the biggest impact on server performance. Plain
Pentiums are limited to 2 CPUS in a multi-CPU system (at least with Intel
chipsets.) And they share bandwidth on the same address and data
bus. Xeons and their chipsets can go to 8, maybe higher, CPUs, and each
one gets a dedicated bus.

One of my favorite vendors is listing P-III Xeons up to 1GHz with
133fsb. Then they have "Intel Xeon" with 256K cache and 400fsb in 1.5 to
2.0GHz speeds. I guess those are based on the P4 ? How they differ from a
P4 I do not know. Check out www.5oclock.com under Price Check / CPUs /
Intel Server if you're curious.

Better yet - you can now get multi-CPU AMD Athlon servers :) IBM was
supposed to be introducing them, or you can roll your own, like Shirley G.

-Wayne Cox
I'm going to try my hardest not to start a new heated debate with this...

I'm in the process of specifying a new server for 5.1 and wanted a few
opinions on things.

1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

2. We are NT 4.0 right now. Should I be considering 2000 Server or
Advanced Server? Will a self taugh IT idiot like myself be able to figure
out 2000 on the fly like I did NT 5 years ago? At this time I don't have
any plans to upgrade the other three servers to 2000 from NT because of
their age, but I'm open to suggestions.

3. Any preference on backup format/media? I would like to get a solution
like a DLT autoloader that will handle all of my data on one set of tapes
instead of changing four sets of DDS tapes in four servers every night. I'm
guessing around 200gb will do the trick for the short term.


Thanks,
Rick
Rick,
I would say that while 2000 is reliable and stable, trying to
learn it "On the Fly" is a big mistake. Microsoft has changed the
nomenclature from NT, moved things around, and added some surprises and
cracker jack prizes. Get some training if your employer will let you, hire
a consultant if you must, but don't go Win2k without backup.

Shirley H. Graver
(End User)
Systems Administrator
Rubber Associates Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Spriggle [mailto:rspriggle@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 10:39 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Off Topic - Server questions for 5.1

I'm going to try my hardest not to start a new heated debate with this...

I'm in the process of specifying a new server for 5.1 and wanted a few
opinions on things.

1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

2. We are NT 4.0 right now. Should I be considering 2000 Server or
Advanced Server? Will a self taugh IT idiot like myself be able to figure
out 2000 on the fly like I did NT 5 years ago? At this time I don't have
any plans to upgrade the other three servers to 2000 from NT because of
their age, but I'm open to suggestions.

3. Any preference on backup format/media? I would like to get a solution
like a DLT autoloader that will handle all of my data on one set of tapes
instead of changing four sets of DDS tapes in four servers every night. I'm
guessing around 200gb will do the trick for the short term.


Thanks,
Rick




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050071
83:HM/A=879172/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-75f>


Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I thought this was an interesting question. I did not see any responses.


1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

Anyone have any experience seeing Vantage run on P3/P4 vs Xeon chips?

Patrick Winter
sSc Specialty Screw Corporation
Vantage 5.00.317, Progress 9.1a


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Spriggle [mailto:rspriggle@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:39 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Off Topic - Server questions for 5.1


I'm going to try my hardest not to start a new heated debate with this...

I'm in the process of specifying a new server for 5.1 and wanted a few
opinions on things.

1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

2. We are NT 4.0 right now. Should I be considering 2000 Server or
Advanced Server? Will a self taugh IT idiot like myself be able to figure
out 2000 on the fly like I did NT 5 years ago? At this time I don't have
any plans to upgrade the other three servers to 2000 from NT because of
their age, but I'm open to suggestions.

3. Any preference on backup format/media? I would like to get a solution
like a DLT autoloader that will handle all of my data on one set of tapes
instead of changing four sets of DDS tapes in four servers every night. I'm
guessing around 200gb will do the trick for the short term.


Thanks,
Rick



Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
I was using an IBM Netfinity Server, Dual PIII 866 with Raid 10 and
1GB Ram. It ran 4.0 and 5.0 with 50 users great with progress 9.0
and 9.1A but when I converted to the Progress MSS Dataserver product
it came to a screaming halt. I moved Vantage, Progress, and SQL
Server to an HP Netserver with Six Xeon 550Mhz Processors, Raid 10,
and 8GB or RAM and didn't see much difference. I recently went to
Progress 9.1C with Vantage 5.1 and the new MSS Dataserver product and
noticed that it runs much faster. We are almost back to the speed of
the standard progress database. I would say that the Xeon Processors
helped but I don't think it was enough to justify the extra expense.
I now use the Netfinity Server as our Vantage Test server and during
off hours (Saturday and Sunday) when the user load is low I cant tell
the difference between the two. I did see subtantial gains in speed
by going to a 1Ghz NIC from the servers to our network switch but it
was costly at about $2000.00.
Thanks
Jeremy Leonard
IT Manager
K-T Corporation
I'm getting conflicting reports on this so I investigated a little further.
According to the IBM website for server configuration the bus speed is
100mhz. According to the Intel white paper on the PIII Xeon 700 and 900 at
1mb or 2mb cache the bus speed is 100mhz. According to the Dell website for
server configuration the bus speed is 400mhz. I think I pretty much have to
go with the Intel white paper on this one.

Now the first question I have is why didn't Intel up the bus speed above
100mhz, especially if the P4 core runs at 400mhz? My second question is
what will the difference be in the Xeon at 100mhz bus speed that was
specifically designed for intensive operations on servers or workstations vs
the 400mhz bus speed of the P4 that was designed for playing games? Maybe
I'm just confused about the whole bus speed thing too. What I do know is
all the big time manufacturers of servers have the Xeon in their high-end
machines.

Rick
I have a duel Xeon 550 MHz server for Vantage and a duel P2 550 MHz server
for file & print services. When doing like system processes.. (HP server run
a NetRaid check on the drives), the Xeon can out run the other one with out
any effort.
Hope this helps a little.
Check out Intel web site... they have some information on all processors.
http://developer.intel.com/design/Xeon/prodbref/

Nancy Dunn
Winco Ind.

-----Original Message-----
From: Winter, Patrick [mailto:pjw@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:30 AM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Off Topic - Server questions for 5.1


I thought this was an interesting question. I did not see any responses.


1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

Anyone have any experience seeing Vantage run on P3/P4 vs Xeon chips?

Patrick Winter
sSc Specialty Screw Corporation
Vantage 5.00.317, Progress 9.1a


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Spriggle [mailto:rspriggle@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:39 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Off Topic - Server questions for 5.1


I'm going to try my hardest not to start a new heated debate with this...

I'm in the process of specifying a new server for 5.1 and wanted a few
opinions on things.

1. Xeon vs. P3/P4 class processors. Most lower end servers are coming with
P3 chips and higher end servers with Xeons, but I see the Xeons still have
the 100mhz bus speed and only go up to 900mhz. I will definitely be using
dual processors.

2. We are NT 4.0 right now. Should I be considering 2000 Server or
Advanced Server? Will a self taugh IT idiot like myself be able to figure
out 2000 on the fly like I did NT 5 years ago? At this time I don't have
any plans to upgrade the other three servers to 2000 from NT because of
their age, but I'm open to suggestions.

3. Any preference on backup format/media? I would like to get a solution
like a DLT autoloader that will handle all of my data on one set of tapes
instead of changing four sets of DDS tapes in four servers every night. I'm
guessing around 200gb will do the trick for the short term.


Thanks,
Rick



Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
The Xeon is a much better processor for processor-intensive tasks. So in a
way, whether or not you need one depends on what kind of load you are
putting on your server. In our use, we have found Vantage to be disk and
memory intensive, but not processor intensive. Your mileage my vary,
however.

As for why Intel based it on the 100/133Mhz FSB architecture, its because a
Xeon is really just a PIII with a big cache. I'm sure Intel will have a P4
based Xeon at some point.

Brian Boyes,
Systems Administrator,
Precision Resource Canada Ltd.
<http://www.precisionresource.com>
<mailto:brianb@...>

> Now the first question I have is why didn't Intel up the bus
> speed above
> 100mhz, especially if the P4 core runs at 400mhz? My second
> question is
> what will the difference be in the Xeon at 100mhz bus speed that was
> specifically designed for intensive operations on servers or
> workstations vs
> the 400mhz bus speed of the P4 that was designed for playing
> games? Maybe
> I'm just confused about the whole bus speed thing too. What
> I do know is
> all the big time manufacturers of servers have the Xeon in
> their high-end machines..
Thanks for the link Nancy. That sheds a lot of light on the subject. The
P3 Xeon indeed has a 400mhz memory bus that is accomplished by running four
100mhz busses in parallel. This explains why DIMMs have to be added in
fours (remember the old 30 pin SIMMS in a 486 having to be in fours?).

I agree with Brian that Vantage is more disk and memory intensive since
right now I rarely see over 20% processor usage on our dual P2-350 system
with 38 users. It probably makes little difference in the end.

Rick
Further information on the bus-speed thing. I just had a look at Intel's web
site myself. In the specs for the server version of the Xeon, which they to
refer to as a "Pentium(R) III Xeon(tm)", the FSB speed is 100Mhz and the
processor speeds are 700 and 900Mhz. In the workstation section, the
available speeds are 1.4-2Ghz and the FSB speed is 400Mhz. So remember when
I said the Intel will make a Pentium IV-based Xeon? Looks like they already
do.

Brian