Xeon 550 512k vs Xeon 500 1MB

F

filledwithloathing

n00b
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
42
Hi, we have a 4-way NT server and are considering bumping it up to 8-way. I can get either Xeon 550 MHz w/ 512k cache or Xeon 500 MHz w 1MB cache for not too much more. Which would be faster? specifically for SQL? I can't seem to find any benchmarks comparing the two. Any imput on this?

Thanks.
 
With DBMSes you want more cache, immense amounts of memory, and, most importantly, a really fast disk subsystem. Databases have always been most limited by I/O bottlenecks. It's only recently with many web-based database apps have we seen a lot of demand for processor clock cycles on DB servers, but then those cycles are spent on the scripting (PHP, ASP, whatever else) and not on the database processing itself. I would highly suggest you monitor the performance of the system and see what your processor utilization is at, as I've got a feeling you may be more in need of an upgraded RAID array.
 
Our current 4 550 512k's see a typical 30-60% load with spikes of all 4 @ 90-100%. We have a gig of ram. This is an upgrade we can do relatively inexpensively and are just trying to find out which would be better. Our raid array is made up of a bunch of 10k SCSI 160 or 320 drives.
 
Are the preexisting 550s also at 512KB cache?
Click to expand...

Yes, but according to Compaq, we can mix and match. Cache sizes and cpu speeds only have to match between pairs. ie we could run 4 550 512k's, 2 500 1MB and 2 550 1MB. We just have to stick the higher cache processors first. This is for a Proliant 8000.
 
10% increase in clock versus 100% increase in cache? And this is for an 8-way? I'd take the 1MB, no questions asked. No questions whatsoever.
 
since you already have 4 512k i would stick with them, and get them at the same speed (and hopefully steping) as your curent setup, I think it would perform better, but if it would not cost alot to go to all 8 1megs, they will perform better in just about all test i have ever seen.
 
Thanks. We decided to upgrade to 4 700's and to hold off going to 8 cpus as we realized we didn't have an OEM copy of NT4 server and therefore only have support for 4 cpu's.
 
700s with more cache or the same amount? I'm a stickler for what goes in servers, and I prefer it to be matched. Over the years I've had too many bad experiences with little details like cache size and clock speed differentials. Usually you can get it to work, but sometimes you'll get a stealth bug that will come up and bite you later on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top