Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

[Guest Hank Arnold (MVP)]

I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will

be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak

seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003

(including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel

WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).

 

I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad

core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

 

--

 

Regards,

Hank Arnold

Microsoft MVP

Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest Jeff Pitsch]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

Dual core if your running 32-bit OS.

 

--

Jeff Pitsch

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Services

 

"Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> wrote in message

news:uLnJ7V0DJHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will be

>running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak seems to

>be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003 (including

>Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel WordPerfect Office

>2000 (mostly legacy files).

>

> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad core

> CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

>

> --

>

> Regards,

> Hank Arnold

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest TP]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

Hi Hank,

 

It makes more sense (in most cases) to get 2 Quad Cores.

Often the price for a quad is the same or close to the price

for a dual. One example, you can buy a Dell 2950 III with

two 2.0Ghz E5405 1333Mhz FSB Quad Cores for the same

price as one with two 1.86Ghz E5205 1066Mhz FSB Dual

Cores. The quad has a higher thermal load (80W versus 65W,

for a total of 30W more each server), but you are only talking

about 2 servers not hundreds.

 

Now, this does *not* mean that you will be able to load

twice as many users, but you *will* have much greater CPU

capacity if you need it. Each core acts as poor man's CPU

throttler for applications that like to consume lots of CPU.

This means that you can have nearly eight CPU-misbehaving

application instances before a CPU-triggered slowdown is

noticed.

 

For example, in certain versions and circumstances Word

may max out the processor (for no good reason), and cause

a slowdown for other applications that need CPU time. What

you will see is that it will typically max out *one* core, leaving the

other seven available to be used (or maxed out) by other

applications. I'm just using Word as an example here, there

are *tons* of other applications that will misbehave as well.

 

The more users/applications/instances you have on a server at

one time, the more likely you will have sustained CPU usage

spikes. More cores allow you to handle more of these spikes

without a noticable slowdown or having to run CPU-throttling

software.

 

I would purchase the fastest Quad cores your budget allows,

taking into consideration other important hardware features like

RAM, 15K RPM HDs, hardware RAID 10, redundant power

supplies, 4-hour warranty, etc. Only you know how much RAM,

CPU, disk I/O, and network bandwidth is needed for your

environment. Of course 64-bit is preferred now if possible.

 

If you can go 64-bit my guess would be you could run all of your

users on a single server if desired. This would likely lower your

costs both upfront and ongoing, however, buying a server with

redundant components and a fast-response warranty become

more important, as well as your backup/recovery procedures.

 

-TP

 

Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:

> I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will

> be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak

> seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003

> (including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel

> WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).

>

> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad

> core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

[Guest Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

TP wrote:

> Hi Hank,

>

> It makes more sense (in most cases) to get 2 Quad Cores. Often the

> price for a quad is the same or close to the price for a dual. One

> example, you can buy a Dell 2950 III with two 2.0Ghz E5405 1333Mhz FSB

> Quad Cores for the same price as one with two 1.86Ghz E5205 1066Mhz FSB

> Dual Cores. The quad has a higher thermal load (80W versus 65W, for a

> total of 30W more each server), but you are only talking about 2 servers

> not hundreds.

>

> Now, this does *not* mean that you will be able to load twice as many

> users, but you *will* have much greater CPU capacity if you need it.

> Each core acts as poor man's CPU throttler for applications that like to

> consume lots of CPU. This means that you can have nearly eight

> CPU-misbehaving application instances before a CPU-triggered slowdown is

> noticed.

>

> For example, in certain versions and circumstances Word may max out the

> processor (for no good reason), and cause a slowdown for other

> applications that need CPU time. What you will see is that it will

> typically max out *one* core, leaving the other seven available to be

> used (or maxed out) by other applications. I'm just using Word as an

> example here, there are *tons* of other applications that will misbehave

> as well.

>

> The more users/applications/instances you have on a server at one time,

> the more likely you will have sustained CPU usage spikes. More cores

> allow you to handle more of these spikes without a noticable slowdown or

> having to run CPU-throttling software.

>

> I would purchase the fastest Quad cores your budget allows, taking into

> consideration other important hardware features like RAM, 15K RPM HDs,

> hardware RAID 10, redundant power supplies, 4-hour warranty, etc. Only

> you know how much RAM, CPU, disk I/O, and network bandwidth is needed

> for your environment. Of course 64-bit is preferred now if possible.

>

> If you can go 64-bit my guess would be you could run all of your users

> on a single server if desired. This would likely lower your costs both

> upfront and ongoing, however, buying a server with redundant components

> and a fast-response warranty become more important, as well as your

> backup/recovery procedures.

>

> -TP

>

> Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:

>> I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will

>> be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak

>> seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003

>> (including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel

>> WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).

>>

>> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad

>> core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

Excellent feedback. Thanks.

 

64 bit is not in the cards until at least next year. The database vendor

(Misys Homecare) will not support 64 bit for the client until at least

Spring 09. That is the single most critical we run, so 32 bit it is.

 

I'm definitely leaning toward the quad core since that would also give

me more flexibility when I have to replace the servers.....

 

--

 

Regards,

Hank Arnold

Microsoft MVP

Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest jolteroli]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

And even better: The cache coherency protocol (MESI) is ways faster on a

single die instead through the lame FSB between two sockets. In case of four

Dual-Cores, the infamous RFO message gets sent from one socket to the three

others, and the acks will come back, everything through the lame FSB. With

two Quad-Cores you'll reduce this traffic to 1/3, that can make a big

difference! Get the two Quads with the highest FSB rating!!!

 

-jolt

 

"Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:uCbpEDAEJHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> TP wrote:

>> Hi Hank,

>>

>> It makes more sense (in most cases) to get 2 Quad Cores. Often the price

>> for a quad is the same or close to the price for a dual. One example,

>> you can buy a Dell 2950 III with two 2.0Ghz E5405 1333Mhz FSB Quad Cores

>> for the same price as one with two 1.86Ghz E5205 1066Mhz FSB Dual Cores.

>> The quad has a higher thermal load (80W versus 65W, for a total of 30W

>> more each server), but you are only talking about 2 servers not hundreds.

>>

>> Now, this does *not* mean that you will be able to load twice as many

>> users, but you *will* have much greater CPU capacity if you need it.

>> Each core acts as poor man's CPU throttler for applications that like to

>> consume lots of CPU. This means that you can have nearly eight

>> CPU-misbehaving application instances before a CPU-triggered slowdown is

>> noticed.

>>

>> For example, in certain versions and circumstances Word may max out the

>> processor (for no good reason), and cause a slowdown for other

>> applications that need CPU time. What you will see is that it will

>> typically max out *one* core, leaving the other seven available to be

>> used (or maxed out) by other applications. I'm just using Word as an

>> example here, there are *tons* of other applications that will misbehave

>> as well.

>>

>> The more users/applications/instances you have on a server at one time,

>> the more likely you will have sustained CPU usage spikes. More cores

>> allow you to handle more of these spikes without a noticable slowdown or

>> having to run CPU-throttling software.

>>

>> I would purchase the fastest Quad cores your budget allows, taking into

>> consideration other important hardware features like RAM, 15K RPM HDs,

>> hardware RAID 10, redundant power supplies, 4-hour warranty, etc. Only

>> you know how much RAM, CPU, disk I/O, and network bandwidth is needed for

>> your environment. Of course 64-bit is preferred now if possible.

>>

>> If you can go 64-bit my guess would be you could run all of your users on

>> a single server if desired. This would likely lower your costs both

>> upfront and ongoing, however, buying a server with redundant components

>> and a fast-response warranty become more important, as well as your

>> backup/recovery procedures.

>>

>> -TP

>>

>> Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:

>>> I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will

>>> be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak

>>> seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003

>>> (including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel

>>> WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).

>>>

>>> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad

>>> core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

> Excellent feedback. Thanks.

>

> 64 bit is not in the cards until at least next year. The database vendor

> (Misys Homecare) will not support 64 bit for the client until at least

> Spring 09. That is the single most critical we run, so 32 bit it is.

>

> I'm definitely leaning toward the quad core since that would also give me

> more flexibility when I have to replace the servers.....

>

> --

>

> Regards,

> Hank Arnold

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest Patrick Rouse]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

I wouldn't buy any servers that have dual core CPUs, when quad core CPUs are

basically the same price. If you decided to virtualize your servers the more

cores the better.

 

I also wouldn't build any servers without a hypervisor, as the advantages of

virtualization far outweigh any performance/scalability gains one might get

off of running on physical servers. Instead of taking a machine with one or

two quad cores and 4GB RAM to run a single instance of Terminal Server, I'd

put 16 to 64GB RAM in the box and run HyperV, ESX, Virtual Iron or Virtuozzo

to slice the box into many servers.

 

 

 

 

--

Patrick C. Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

Systems Consultant

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

Virtual Client Solutions

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

 

 

"jolteroli" wrote:

> And even better: The cache coherency protocol (MESI) is ways faster on a

> single die instead through the lame FSB between two sockets. In case of four

> Dual-Cores, the infamous RFO message gets sent from one socket to the three

> others, and the acks will come back, everything through the lame FSB. With

> two Quad-Cores you'll reduce this traffic to 1/3, that can make a big

> difference! Get the two Quads with the highest FSB rating!!!

>

> -jolt

>

> "Hank Arnold (MVP)" <rasilon@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

> news:uCbpEDAEJHA.5280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > TP wrote:

> >> Hi Hank,

> >>

> >> It makes more sense (in most cases) to get 2 Quad Cores. Often the price

> >> for a quad is the same or close to the price for a dual. One example,

> >> you can buy a Dell 2950 III with two 2.0Ghz E5405 1333Mhz FSB Quad Cores

> >> for the same price as one with two 1.86Ghz E5205 1066Mhz FSB Dual Cores.

> >> The quad has a higher thermal load (80W versus 65W, for a total of 30W

> >> more each server), but you are only talking about 2 servers not hundreds.

> >>

> >> Now, this does *not* mean that you will be able to load twice as many

> >> users, but you *will* have much greater CPU capacity if you need it.

> >> Each core acts as poor man's CPU throttler for applications that like to

> >> consume lots of CPU. This means that you can have nearly eight

> >> CPU-misbehaving application instances before a CPU-triggered slowdown is

> >> noticed.

> >>

> >> For example, in certain versions and circumstances Word may max out the

> >> processor (for no good reason), and cause a slowdown for other

> >> applications that need CPU time. What you will see is that it will

> >> typically max out *one* core, leaving the other seven available to be

> >> used (or maxed out) by other applications. I'm just using Word as an

> >> example here, there are *tons* of other applications that will misbehave

> >> as well.

> >>

> >> The more users/applications/instances you have on a server at one time,

> >> the more likely you will have sustained CPU usage spikes. More cores

> >> allow you to handle more of these spikes without a noticable slowdown or

> >> having to run CPU-throttling software.

> >>

> >> I would purchase the fastest Quad cores your budget allows, taking into

> >> consideration other important hardware features like RAM, 15K RPM HDs,

> >> hardware RAID 10, redundant power supplies, 4-hour warranty, etc. Only

> >> you know how much RAM, CPU, disk I/O, and network bandwidth is needed for

> >> your environment. Of course 64-bit is preferred now if possible.

> >>

> >> If you can go 64-bit my guess would be you could run all of your users on

> >> a single server if desired. This would likely lower your costs both

> >> upfront and ongoing, however, buying a server with redundant components

> >> and a fast-response warranty become more important, as well as your

> >> backup/recovery procedures.

> >>

> >> -TP

> >>

> >> Hank Arnold (MVP) wrote:

> >>> I will be ordering two new servers for a new/replacement farm. It will

> >>> be running Windows 2003, PS 4.5, have50 concurrent licenses (our peak

> >>> seems to be around 35 concurrent users). We will run Office 2003

> >>> (including Outlook), a database client (Misys HomeCare) and Corel

> >>> WordPerfect Office 2000 (mostly legacy files).

> >>>

> >>> I'd appreciate opinions on whether it makes more sense to get 2 Quad

> >>> core CPUs or Dual core CPUs....

> > Excellent feedback. Thanks.

> >

> > 64 bit is not in the cards until at least next year. The database vendor

> > (Misys Homecare) will not support 64 bit for the client until at least

> > Spring 09. That is the single most critical we run, so 32 bit it is.

> >

> > I'm definitely leaning toward the quad core since that would also give me

> > more flexibility when I have to replace the servers.....

> >

> > --

> >

> > Regards,

> > Hank Arnold

> > Microsoft MVP

> > Windows Server - Directory Services

>

>

[Guest Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

Patrick Rouse wrote:

> I wouldn't buy any servers that have dual core CPUs, when quad core CPUs are

> basically the same price. If you decided to virtualize your servers the more

> cores the better.

>

> I also wouldn't build any servers without a hypervisor, as the advantages of

> virtualization far outweigh any performance/scalability gains one might get

> off of running on physical servers. Instead of taking a machine with one or

> two quad cores and 4GB RAM to run a single instance of Terminal Server, I'd

> put 16 to 64GB RAM in the box and run HyperV, ESX, Virtual Iron or Virtuozzo

> to slice the box into many servers.

>

>

>

>

 

Thanks to all for the advice.

 

BTW, isn't hypervisor 64 bit based? I'm stuck with 2003 (and 32 bit)

until the vendor supports it....

 

--

 

Regards,

Hank Arnold

Microsoft MVP

Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest Patrick Rouse]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

Hank, you definitely can run 32 bit guest operating systems on all of the

mainstream hypervisors, and most support 64 bit guests as well. if you are

considering virtualizing your servers and haven't done this before you'll

either want to setup a lab or hire a consultant that can help you to decide

on the appropriate technology for your deployment and to implement the

solution. feel free to ping me offline if you'd like me to recommend a

consultant to you.

 

--

Patrick C. Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

Systems Consultant

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

Virtual Client Solutions

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

 

 

"Hank Arnold (MVP)" wrote:

> Patrick Rouse wrote:

> > I wouldn't buy any servers that have dual core CPUs, when quad core CPUs are

> > basically the same price. If you decided to virtualize your servers the more

> > cores the better.

> >

> > I also wouldn't build any servers without a hypervisor, as the advantages of

> > virtualization far outweigh any performance/scalability gains one might get

> > off of running on physical servers. Instead of taking a machine with one or

> > two quad cores and 4GB RAM to run a single instance of Terminal Server, I'd

> > put 16 to 64GB RAM in the box and run HyperV, ESX, Virtual Iron or Virtuozzo

> > to slice the box into many servers.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Thanks to all for the advice.

>

> BTW, isn't hypervisor 64 bit based? I'm stuck with 2003 (and 32 bit)

> until the vendor supports it....

>

> --

>

> Regards,

> Hank Arnold

> Microsoft MVP

> Windows Server - Directory Services

>

[Guest Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Quad or Dual Core CPUs??

 

Patrick Rouse wrote:

> Hank, you definitely can run 32 bit guest operating systems on all of the

> mainstream hypervisors, and most support 64 bit guests as well. if you are

> considering virtualizing your servers and haven't done this before you'll

> either want to setup a lab or hire a consultant that can help you to decide

> on the appropriate technology for your deployment and to implement the

> solution. feel free to ping me offline if you'd like me to recommend a

> consultant to you.

>

 

Good point... Thanks for all the advice...

 

--

 

Regards,

Hank Arnold

Microsoft MVP

Windows Server - Directory Services