How much faster? Celeron = 100, what would a pentium 4=?
Printable View
How much faster? Celeron = 100, what would a pentium 4=?
Celeron = 100 Pentium 4 = 150 Xeon = 200... Not precise, but a Xeon would be the best possible processor. Cacheing is extremely helpful in database processing. The Celeron has barely any cache and the Xeon is quite loaded.
Well kind of, depends what your doing with it. A ferrari would beat a jeep hands down on the road, but change to a bit of offroad and the ferrari would be useless.
In this case though, a Pentium will always be better than a celeron, but the amount would depend on the usage.
Imagine if you will the celeron has normal car wheels, the pentium has 4x4 wheels, and the Xeon has monster truck wheels, which would you want to drive round a boggy bit of offroad track?
you can't tell me that you would rather have a celeron then a Xeon can you? That would be crazy talk. The Xeon is THE server processor from Intel.
Oh no, not at all! Was just trying to illustrate the point that the difference between two items depends very much on what you want to do with them.
If you just wanted a word processor as cheap as possible, a celeron would be best. But for a server, using a celeron is like pulling up to the Formula 1 starting line in your 1400cc Ford Escort... Its gonna get trounced.
oh okay. That makes sense, but if I were to upgrade a server I would go Xeon. Right now I have basically the same thing as Sean, a 2.4 GHz Celeron and it is fine for my purposes. Eventually though I will probably upgrade to a dual Xeon beast.
Only DUAL-Xeon avail. Expensive. http://www.servermatrix.com
Dual-Xeon will be a great improvement for less than double the price ($170 over $100 now?). How much is it costing you having a slow server?
I'm not sure, I added loads of extras like 60ips and CPanel...
Do you think I should just swtich to a dual xeon, or should I keep the one I have now and use cluster technology?
60 ips ???
Cpanel would not slow your server much, if at all.
You wouldn't know how to use cluster technology (no offense intended) and a Dual Xeon would most probably be more than enough.
Cluster technology would seem to be a bit OTT, and against the KISS principle... Its not like you have one huge site that cant be served by one server and hence need clustering, you have lots of smaller ones, and doing what Chris does(when you need to) would be a better idea, i.e. multiple sites spread out over multiple servers.
You could even keep your existing server, get another one somewhere else (with different Class C IP), then spread your sites out so that you can interlink them across completely different IP ranges.
The problem is it's one site taking up all the resources, but I think Dual Xeon should be ok for now... In 4 months I'm sure I will need to do a cluster.
What does the one site do?
I'm pretty sure in 4 months you won't *need* to cluster.
Yes, I'd be interested in hearing what this site is, and WHY it's using up a lot of resources.
need a cluster? must be an awesome site.