Pure MySQL database server ?

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by eva2000, Jun 26, 2005.

  1. eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Question folks for a pure backend mysql database server for vBulletin forum which would be better serving at least 800+ mysql concurrent connections and 250-300+ queries/second (about 2,000 vB users online and 15-30 million pageviews/month)

    1. Quad Xeon P4 2.8ghz 400fsb 2MB L3 cache server with 6GB PC1600 memory http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl580/specifications-g2.html

    OR

    2. Dual Xeon P4 3.6ghz 800fsb 2MB L2 cache server with 8GB PC3200 DDR2 memory
    http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/proliantdl380/specifications-g4.html

    money saved if any on option 2 would be put towards 2nd db server smaller spec to replicate the mysql database for reads

    Yeah i know Opterons are better but client has made the point he wants to stick with his current web host who only deals in Intel servers.
     
  2. someotherguy

    someotherguy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Wouldn't the MYSQL guys be able to provide that info? Or would you need some kind of a support license?

    This link might be helpful: "MySQL is excellent to save on your hardware costs, but if you expect the number of transactions/data mining queries to rise quickly, adding more than two CPUs will buy you little performance (10 to 20% boost)."

    So with me knowing very little of the specifics it looks like the 2 CPU option would most likely be better.
     
  3. infiltraitor

    infiltraitor Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,801
    Location:
    melbourne Donated:$133.70
    also the higher memory bandwidth in the dual cpu option would be an advantage.
     
  4. OP
    OP
    eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    yeah that's one reason i'm leaving to second option memory bandwidth and fact 2MB cache is L2 on 2nd option instead of L3
     
  5. Agg

    Agg Lord of the Pings

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    31,984
    Location:
    A Reported Post Near You
    Anandtech had an article recently that may be of interest:

    http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447

    Personally I think dual CPU with lots of RAM is the way to go, and that's what we'll be doing for OCAU. Our server will also be handling apache, though.
     
  6. bsbozzy

    bsbozzy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,925
    Location:
    Sydney
    I work with alot of HP servers, the xeon 400mhz quads are old news, the new DL380G4 would be the go, an extra 800Mhz on the 2 procs (wont really matter about not haveing another 2 procs with hyperthreading aswell), Newer Memory with a hell of alot more bandwidth, and space for 6 u320 drives WHats most important to remember is that 6 * 72GB SCSI 15k RPM would be faster than 6 145GB 15k drives.

    If you want HP prices go here:

    http://hp.com.au/products/configureaider/

    That will give you HP's general RRP, if you search around and find a good dealer, such an www.mcpc.com.au you will roughly get another 15% off that
     
  7. Agg

    Agg Lord of the Pings

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    31,984
    Location:
    A Reported Post Near You
    I don't think he's buying his own hardware.. sounds more like he's leasing a box from a host who has the two listed options available.
     
  8. bsbozzy

    bsbozzy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,925
    Location:
    Sydney
    Doesnt hurt hium though, now he's a better man :leet: :leet: :leet: .
     
  9. OP
    OP
    eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    yeah client is renting the hardware off the web host heh
     
  10. stalin

    stalin (Taking a Break)

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,581
    Location:
    On the move
    I would go Option 2. 2cpu has some nice benchmarks of mySQL on dual-quad setups including Opterons (which if memory serves correct are up to 25% quicker in some instances - also 64bit on the Xeon doesnt work so great on mySQL).
    For that amount of traffic and with the number of writes to your database I would hazard a guess that your disk I/O would be the limiting factor. The additional memory and memory bandwidth would be of great assistance though.
    As we all know Xeon´s dont scale to well, so stick with 2, and put the money towards more hard disks or more RAM.
     
  11. Audiobuzz

    Audiobuzz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Are you sure? I would have thought the higher density of the 145GB drives would have increased the sequential access and given they are both spinning at 15k then the average seek time for random access would be the same.

    I'm not doubting you, just curious as to the reasoning behind the difference.

    AB
     
  12. bsbozzy

    bsbozzy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,925
    Location:
    Sydney
    Someone on here told me, they could be wrong and i could be stupid for taking their word for it, see my thread here http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=343219
     
  13. Audiobuzz

    Audiobuzz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Adelaide
    ok it was stalin that said it and what he meant was that 6x 76GB drives will be faster than 3x 148GB drives because there are more spindles. Makes sense.

    There is also a good chance (and I haven't checked this so I'm making an assumption here) that the 76GB drives will be less than half the price of the 148GB drives so "bang for buck" would also be better.



    AB
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2005
  14. jboles

    jboles Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,408
    Location:
    Sydney NSW / Seattle USA
    This will be the case with latest-generation drives; manufacturers tend to impose a price premium on higher capacities. But when a drive model is superseded by a new generation the opposite tends to happen, with higher capacities being cheaper per unit of storage
     
  15. Agg

    Agg Lord of the Pings

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    31,984
    Location:
    A Reported Post Near You
    Would there be higher density? Or simply more platters enabled/present?
     
  16. OP
    OP
    eva2000

    eva2000 DDR1/DDR2/DDR3 Addict

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,902
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    thanks guys... from what I was told he's getting 6x74GB SCSI 15k raid 1 two disks for OS and raid 10 for 4 disks for data partition or something like that
     
  17. Audiobuzz

    Audiobuzz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Would it matter? wouldn't either give a higher sequential read/write?

    Maybe I'm assuming too much and mistakenly believing the drives can write to more than one platter in parallel.

    AB
     
  18. Agg

    Agg Lord of the Pings

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    31,984
    Location:
    A Reported Post Near You
    As far as I'm aware the heads still move as one assembly, ie they are above the same block on each platter at any time. I could be wrong, though.
     
  19. someotherguy

    someotherguy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Yeah but if the drive is denser (ie higher capacity) the head swings over more data for any given time perion so seek should be less.

    Edit:
    Yup it does.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2005
  20. Agg

    Agg Lord of the Pings

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    31,984
    Location:
    A Reported Post Near You
    I know, but what I'm saying is, when someone makes a 72GB drive and then makes a 144GB drive, they usually simply add a platter, not make the media denser. If they could make the media twice as dense, wouldn't they do that on all their platters?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: