Re: Xeon vs. Opteron

[Leigh Porter <leighldap@leighporter.org>]

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.

--
Leigh



Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:

> --On Monday, October 31, 2005 2:50 PM +0200 Jonas Helgi Palsson 
> <jonas.palsson@bergensskolen.no> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I have now afew OpenLDAP servers who "just work". But I see that the 
> > most
> > 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 
> > 2.6GHz?
> >
> > 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).
>
> --Quanah
>
>
> --
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Developer
> ITSS/Shared Services
> Stanford University
> GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html