Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 15:41 -0400, Jon Shorie wrote:
We have been running a mix of Redhat Linux, Fedora Linux, Kubuntu Linux, and
Sun Solaris 8 on our servers and some desktops since Redhat 6.0.
It is finally time to replace our last sun server. The only thing that this
machine does is share files via nfs to our network of about 50 users and 18
servers.
I am trying to decide between a Core 2 Quad Q8200 and a Pentium Dual Core
E5400. The Quad is running at 2.33 GHz. The Dual is running at 2.7 GHz.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether we would notice much difference
between the Dual and Quad for performance.
I am including a list of the specs.
4u Rackmount Chassis
Antec Neo Power 430 430Watt Modular Power Supply
Gigabyte GA-G31M-ES2L Motherboard
4 GB Ram
Intel Pentium Dual Core E5400 2.7 GHz Processor or
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33 GHz Processor
Western Digital Caviar WD5000AACS 500GB Hard Drive for the O/S Install and
temporary backup files.
(2) Western Digital Caviar WD7500AACS 750GB Hard Drives using Linux Software
Raid for the shared files.
Intel PWLA839GT 10/100/1000Mbps Ethernet Adapter
The Specs of the Sun Server are as follows:
Sun Ultra 450
2 Ultra Sparc 400MHz Processors
2GB Ram
(4) Seagate Ultra 320 SCSI 36GB Hard Drives
1 Drive for O/S Install
1 Drive for Backup Temporary Files
2 Drives using software raid mirroring for the shared files.
10/100 ethernet adapter
Thank you in advance for any suggestions.
----
I would tend to doubt that the processor is going to make all that much
difference on a server whose primary function is to provide NFS but my
own thinking is...
1 - I prefer good hardware RAID over software RAID.
Second that, I tend to use 3ware SATA/SAS RAID Controllers
2 - Peformance using RAID 1 or 1+0 (4 drives minimum) is much better
than RAID 5
3 - I really like having at least a mirror RAID (RAID 1) on the boot
volume as well as the data drives so in a server I wouldn't necessarily
segregate the OS from the data on physical drives but rather in
different RAID partitions.
I also tend to keep the os off the raid volume and then clone using
clonezilla or partimage to make a "bare-metal" recovery
4 - I would probably use RHEL or CentOS for this server rather than have
to deal with the churn of many upgrades using Fedora. I like Fedora for
Desktop and specialty server types but not a network backbone system.
CentOS is the choice if you do not need support or direct patches, else
use RHEL
Fedora has a lifespan of 12-18 months, then "support" ends, CentOS has a
lifespan about 7 years.
Craig
--
Toshaan <toshlinux@xxxxxxxxx> - http://www.toshaan.be
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
