[KLUG Members] Re: Informal Survey

[Bryan J. Smith]

[ Possibly more appropriate on HARDWARE? ]

Quoting adam@morrison-ind.com:
> That would rock.  SCSI makes a big difference,

SCSI command queuing and tagging makes a big difference.  You can get the same
out of ATA if you use a _real_ hardware ATA RAID controller like the 3Ware
Escalade (TheBS' favorite), Adaptec 2400A or a Promise _Super_Trak (_not_ those
"fake/BIOS-only" _Fast_Traks).

> I'd just add more RAM.

Always a good move.

> I prefer dual, with multiple users performance may not be as "fast" but
> it feels much more constant/steady.

That's because of the way Linux 2.4 works.  You get 1 kernel entry per CPU with
an SMP kernel.  If you are uP, you can only have one.  Makes a _huge_ "latency"
difference.

The "pre-empt patch" basically "fools" the 2.4 kernel into thinking you have
multiple CPUs, and allows multiple entries.  So you get better latency at
somewhat of a throughput cost.  For a workstation, this is quite acceptable.

On a server, it's better to have actual, multiple CPUs.

Of course, on a +_file_ or other "high throughput" server, multiple CPUs are
_useless_ _unless_ you pair it with good I/O.  Either a P3/P4 SMP with multiple
memory/IO channels (like a faster "hub"), or a dual-Athlon MP which allows each
CPU to access the bus independently (like a per-port "switch").

> The only thing that is a little annoying is that saving my LDAP
> presentation takes almost a minute,  but everything else (spreadsheets,
> evo, galeon) is snappy.

Sounds like more memory and RAID-0 or 10 would be optimal.  ;-P

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.            Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
A+/i-Net+/Linux+/Network+/Server+ CCNA CIWA CNA SCSA/SCWSE/SCNA
---------------------------------------------------------------
           limit      guilt   =     { psychopath,
         remorse->0                    innocent }