Server CPU's - some advice please

[ThirdEye]

We are about to buy a new server for our office and I would be really grateful if any of you could advise me as to the differences in performance between the various Xeon processors.

I've been looking at servers with the :

* 2 x Dual Core Xeon 5050 3.0ghz (667 mhz fsb 2x2mb cache) or,
* 2 x Xeon 3.2ghz 2mb cache (single core).

I noticed that there are different versions of the dual core Xeons with different fsb and different cpu speeds (seems that as the fsb increases the speed decreases?). Is there a significant difference between these different dual core processors?

We'll be using SBS 2003 premium edition (to make use of the SQL features) and otherwise the server will be used for Exchange, internet, file sharing etc etc. There are 12 people in our office.

It's been a long time since I bought a PC and even longer since I bought our last server and I'm totally out of touch on these things now. If you could point me to some information I'd be very grateful.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Flanno]

Why don't you look at the new Xeon 'Core 2 Duo' known as Woodcrest.
See my sig. 1333fsb and 3.0ghz for the top model plus the mobos using the Intel 5000x chipset and upwards have 2 independent front side buses.

 

[ThirdEye]

Thanks, had a look at those when pricing up and they are quite a bit more expensive but maybe worth the extra in the long run. Do you know where I can get some performance comparisons between the different models?

Are all of the dual core Xeons with FSB above 667 the 'woodcrest' models you refer to?

 

[J1nxy]

With all these things it depends on what you intend to do with the box. Is it a big SQL database? what type and size of disks are you intending to run etc. Most of the other Apps you get with SBS will generate a very small processor load on the box.

We have a branch office of 50 people which is running a Opetron based system Dual Core system and running an Exchange environement we generate tops 10% processor load. But you will more than likely find that if you have any bottle necks on the box it'll be disk IO rather than processor.

Remeber that servers are very different beasts in what they do etc than desktops.

Steve

 

[severance]

Why not ask the question of what do you need it for first? file and print servers along with domain controllers and security servers seldom need dual CPU's or dual core regardless of what type they are.

The 5050 and 5150 Xeons are the most energy efficient I believe, older Xeons are more energy hungry but probably a lot cheaper.

 

[ThirdEye]

The server will serve approx 12 people currently and will be doing file/print sharing, exchange, internet access, and an SQL database which to be honest isn't massive currently. Disk wise, we were planning 4 x 146gb SAS drives (10,000 rpm) - wondering now if we should go for the 15,000 rpm drives?

I don't want to go over the top but equally I don't want to regret a purchase in say 12 months or even 6 months. I'd rather get it right first time.

One thing that we might do in the future which may or may not affect what we buy now (I don't know) is purchase another office and therefore need some kind of remote link between the two offices so that they both run off the same software and are using the same data.

Appreciate your help so far.

 

[J1nxy]

Ok based on that I'd say stick a single Dual core in and stick 2 or 4GB or ram in it. That way you'd have the option of expanding later if you need to.

Personally I'd stick 2 smaller drives mirrored for the OS and then use 3 or 4 SAS 10K in RAID 5 dependent on what your storage requirements are. That should be plenty for what you need.

In terms of remote office that'll make no difference to your server requirements as that'll be a network setup thing or possibly terminal services which would be better running on a different box.

Steve