"Proper" server v powerful PC

How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine. For example, if I
built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS
1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

How would the above system compare to, say, a HP or Dell server? I mean in
terms of performance?

The reason I ask is that I could build the above machine for around half the
price of a HP or Dell server. Obviously my primary concern is stability and
performance, but if I could, say, get a machine 0.9 times as good as a
server for 0.5 times the price then I would have to consider it.

I have a limited budget and need the machine to be a database server. If a
"homebuilt" server is a viable option then are there any suggestions with
regards suitable components for the server? For example, I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Jase wrote:

" 1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS
1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200 "


Good luck with the Q-Tec PSU.

"Jase" wrote in message
...
How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine. For example, if
I built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS

Don't buy Q-Tec. For a server - or for that matter any PC - you want a
decent PSU, and that sure as hell ain't it.

1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

How would the above system compare to, say, a HP or Dell server? I mean in
terms of performance?

The reason I ask is that I could build the above machine for around half
the price of a HP or Dell server. Obviously my primary concern is
stability and performance, but if I could, say, get a machine 0.9 times as
good as a server for 0.5 times the price then I would have to consider it.

I have a limited budget and need the machine to be a database server. If a
"homebuilt" server is a viable option then are there any suggestions with
regards suitable components for the server? For example, I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?


--
Derek

Jase writes:

How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine.

Very much so, if the actual requirements of your server permit it.

"Proper" servers are simply computers with characteristics that are
usually important in server applications. The extent to which these
characteristics are important to your application determines how
closely you must approach a "proper" configuration when building your
server.

For example, if I
built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS
1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

How would the above system compare to, say, a HP or Dell server? I mean in
terms of performance?

Performance is only one issue for servers. Reliability is another.

What's the maximum load you'll put on your server, and what type of
load will it be?

What duty cycle will the server have (most have 24/24 and 7/7)?
What's the minimum uptime you wish to ensure for the machine?

I built my own server (P4 3.0 GHz, Asus motherboard, a couple of fans,
two 120 GB SATA drives, cheap video card, etc.), and it runs extremely
well and meets all my requirements with power to spare. If I were
building a machine that would handle air traffic control with very
heavy loads and mandatory uptime of 99.99999%, however, this type of
configuration probably wouldn't be satisfactory.

The reason I ask is that I could build the above machine for around half the
price of a HP or Dell server.

There's a lot of margin built into purpose-built servers, because they
are usually sold to businesses, and business-to-business sales often
involve extremely generous margins.

However, purpose-built servers often do have features that are not
considered important on desktops, and vice versa. You don't need a
fancy video card on a server, for example, since the console may only
be used in text mode, when it is used at all. But you do often need
very reliable and performant disk subsystems, since heavily-loaded
servers are often doing heavy disk I/O continuously, and the disk
subsystems must be able to tolerate this.

Obviously my primary concern is stability and
performance, but if I could, say, get a machine 0.9 times as good as a
server for 0.5 times the price then I would have to consider it.

Obviously.

I have a limited budget and need the machine to be a database server. If a
"homebuilt" server is a viable option then are there any suggestions with
regards suitable components for the server? For example, I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Don't get carried away with CPU power. Database servers may be
I/O-bound, which means that you need very performant and reliable
disks (SCSI RAID arrays, for example). Even a very ordinary CPU may
be largely sufficient.

In many applications, servers put heavier loads on disks than desktops
do, and desktops put heavier loads on CPUs that servers do. Lots of
memory is a good idea for any system, server or desktop.

Servers often need good backup facilities (DAT or DLT drives) and
power conditioning (UPS with battery backup) to ensure maximum uptime.
They often need good ventilation, too, with fans that are reliable
(and thus more expensive), because they may be under substantial loads
and because again the uptime is important.

In summary, there's no real dividing line between servers and
desktops. Just build a system that meets the requirements of whatever
you plan to use it for.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Are you sure? IIRC, I read an article that compared the performance of
like-for-like rated dual core and single core processors, and the
single core one was faster.

Jase wrote:

How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine. For example, if I
built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS
1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

How would the above system compare to, say, a HP or Dell server? I mean in
terms of performance?

The reason I ask is that I could build the above machine for around half the
price of a HP or Dell server. Obviously my primary concern is stability and
performance, but if I could, say, get a machine 0.9 times as good as a
server for 0.5 times the price then I would have to consider it.

I have a limited budget and need the machine to be a database server. If a
"homebuilt" server is a viable option then are there any suggestions with
regards suitable components for the server? For example, I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Besides the other advice you have received, be sure to use ECC
memory and a suitable system. Memory errors are the weak link in
all computer systems; almost everything else has checks to ensure
correct operation. ECC extends this to memory, at very reasonable
cost. Memory errors can be due to stray cosmic rays and other
things completely out of your control.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jase writes:

How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine.

Very much so, if the actual requirements of your server permit it.

"Proper" servers are simply computers with characteristics that are
usually important in server applications. The extent to which these
characteristics are important to your application determines how
closely you must approach a "proper" configuration when building your
server.

For example, if I
built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS
1 x ATI Powercolor X300Se Gfx PCI-E
3 x Kingston 1GB DDR PC3200

How would the above system compare to, say, a HP or Dell server? I mean
in
terms of performance?

Performance is only one issue for servers. Reliability is another.

What's the maximum load you'll put on your server, and what type of
load will it be?

It's really hard to say because the application will be a database driven
website. It will be transactionally heavy and the maximum load depends on
the peak number of simultaneous users I guess - and this depends on how
popular the site is. I would hazard a very rough guess at around 50-100
simultaneous users for the first year or so.

The majority of transactions will be SQL select statements, although a
significant minority will be updates and inserts.

What duty cycle will the server have (most have 24/24 and 7/7)?

Yeah 24/7.

What's the minimum uptime you wish to ensure for the machine?

Well the application will not be business critical, although obviously the
more uptime the better.

I built my own server (P4 3.0 GHz, Asus motherboard, a couple of fans,
two 120 GB SATA drives, cheap video card, etc.), and it runs extremely
well and meets all my requirements with power to spare. If I were
building a machine that would handle air traffic control with very
heavy loads and mandatory uptime of 99.99999%, however, this type of
configuration probably wouldn't be satisfactory.

The reason I ask is that I could build the above machine for around half
the
price of a HP or Dell server.

There's a lot of margin built into purpose-built servers, because they
are usually sold to businesses, and business-to-business sales often
involve extremely generous margins.

However, purpose-built servers often do have features that are not
considered important on desktops, and vice versa. You don't need a
fancy video card on a server, for example, since the console may only
be used in text mode, when it is used at all. But you do often need
very reliable and performant disk subsystems, since heavily-loaded
servers are often doing heavy disk I/O continuously, and the disk
subsystems must be able to tolerate this.

Are there any AMD 64 939 "server" quality motherboards out there?

Obviously my primary concern is stability and
performance, but if I could, say, get a machine 0.9 times as good as a
server for 0.5 times the price then I would have to consider it.

Obviously.

I have a limited budget and need the machine to be a database server. If
a
"homebuilt" server is a viable option then are there any suggestions with
regards suitable components for the server? For example, I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Don't get carried away with CPU power. Database servers may be
I/O-bound, which means that you need very performant and reliable
disks (SCSI RAID arrays, for example). Even a very ordinary CPU may
be largely sufficient.

Will the Western Digital Raptors be suitable disks for a transactionally
heavy database server? Or would I be much better going for SCSI?

In many applications, servers put heavier loads on disks than desktops
do, and desktops put heavier loads on CPUs that servers do. Lots of
memory is a good idea for any system, server or desktop.

Yeah I would be looking to have 3GB of RAM.

Servers often need good backup facilities (DAT or DLT drives) and
power conditioning (UPS with battery backup) to ensure maximum uptime.
They often need good ventilation, too, with fans that are reliable
(and thus more expensive), because they may be under substantial loads
and because again the uptime is important.

Yes.

In summary, there's no real dividing line between servers and
desktops. Just build a system that meets the requirements of whatever
you plan to use it for.

Thanks for the good, positive answer.

"Derek Baker" wrote in message
...
"Jase" wrote in message
...
How cheap, effective and easy is it to build a server style PC as an
alternative to purchasing a "proper" server class machine. For example,
if I built a PC with the following specs:

1 x AMD 64 X2 4800
1 x (Insert good quality 939 motherboard here... any suggestions?)
1 x Western Digital Raptor 36GB 10000RPM SATA
2 x Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10000RPM SATA
1 x Thermaltake Armor Alu Super Tower
1 x Q-Tec 650W PS

Don't buy Q-Tec. For a server - or for that matter any PC - you want a
decent PSU, and that sure as hell ain't it.

OK. I have no clue about PSUs.

"Random Person" wrote in message
ups.com...
I figured that a
dual core chip such as the X2 would perform far better for database work
than a single CPU... how does this compare to a dual CPU system?

Are you sure? IIRC, I read an article that compared the performance of
like-for-like rated dual core and single core processors, and the
single core one was faster.

But as this would be a database server then it would take advantage of the
dual core CPU multitasking capabilities.

"CBFalconer" wrote in message
...

Besides the other advice you have received, be sure to use ECC
memory and a suitable system.

OK.