Creed3020 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 The topic says it all but in case you missed it does anybody have a Nehalem Xeon 55xx based server yet? Softlayer has them out and I am really curious to hear more about them and figured I would ask here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I was completely oblivious to this, time to do some research I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Crothers Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Sorry, only got 40amps. Not going to waste my time on bigger chips, when bigger boxes = more customers down simultaneously for hardware issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Sorry, only got 40amps. Not going to waste my time on bigger chips - when bigger boxes = more customers down simultaneously for hardware issues. What?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wondorae Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 i can see your point at what your getting at, more customers on a box, when it goes down the more customers get irritated. But on the other hand more servers on one box means that you need less space ect and that should = less cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan M Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Which = more profit as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I find it out how you won't run a box because the hardware may fail... it's not like the 5520's will run many more servers then the 5400's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbiloh Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 The Nehalem parts are very power hungry, and in their current form, far from efficient. At this point we are avoiding them until the process is a bit more refined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Crothers Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I find it out how you won't run a box because the hardware may fail... it's not like the 5520's will run many more servers then the 5400's... When you get a few more machines and you see hardware failure - you'll learn. It's called better business when you can limit downtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed3020 Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I find it out how you won't run a box because the hardware may fail... it's not like the 5520's will run many more servers then the 5400's... Do you have anything to back that claim up with? While Passmark scores are not reality in the game server hosting world it does show that the 5520 has a decent lead on almost all 54xx series CPUs (only two 54xx have higher scores). I do understand how the need to balance the number of clients on one server as total accumulated downtime increases with more clients per server but is it not all our responsibilities to not overload servers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd Holley Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 You wouldn't be overloading if all aspects of the server could maintain more services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLight Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Well, I should test one next month, that is dual 5530 hyperthreaded wich means 16 cores. With 32go of ddr3. Wait and see ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 When you get a few more machines and you see hardware failure - you'll learn. It's called better business when you can limit downtime. I find that pretty funny. You should put your money where your mouth is. maybe some day you will learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Do you have anything to back that claim up with? While Passmark scores are not reality in the game server hosting world it does show that the 5520 has a decent lead on almost all 54xx series CPUs (only two 54xx have higher scores). I do understand how the need to balance the number of clients on one server as total accumulated downtime increases with more clients per server but is it not all our responsibilities to not overload servers? The link you just posted. The 5410 vs the 5520 has about a 5 cpu difference and + 1,500 not exactly a cpu that you can add double the amount of servers on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbiloh Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Raw processing power of a CPU is hardly the only factor involved when running time sensitive applications (ie, game servers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonF Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I agree with Steven in that it does not make sense to run dual quad cores and have a ton of client servers on a single box. If that box fails you will have a lot of angry people at you. A single quad core is more than sufficient enough to make a profit as long as you charge properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLight Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 And how will you charge a single quad core? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Crothers Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Raw processing power of a CPU is hardly the only factor involved when running time sensitive applications (ie, game servers). Agreed, anyone who thinks tossing a bigger and badder processor at the system in the attempts to get "high performance" is fooling themselves. High performance is done with careful calculations, low load averages, and an optimized operating system. Anyone that believes differently are fooling themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Crothers Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I agree with Steven in that it does not make sense to run dual quad cores and have a ton of client servers on a single box. If that box fails you will have a lot of angry people at you. A single quad core is more than sufficient enough to make a profit as long as you charge properly. Agreed good sir, you can always tell who's a veteran around here with the smarter comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Crothers Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 And how will you charge a single quad core? With money of course. Jokes aside though, you need to find a hardware partner. Even if you at minimum do 1U colocation which is normally ~$65 + $100 for b/w you save roughly $200-$300 dollars. Just takes an initial investment on the hardware aspect. When each machine costs at most $160/mo its quite easy to turn a profit. Depending on your levels of boost you will sell slots from anywhere between $1-$7. If you sell 20 10slot servers at $1/slot you make $200 which is probably under loading the machine depending on the single processor you choose. Stick with single proc, quad core machines. You'll save money - and have less catastrophic problems in the future. Just because you can double the customers per machine, doesn't mean you should. Its just as bad as overloading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamnp Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Back on topic, we have one on the way and I'll post some benchmarks up as soon as its live and I get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed3020 Posted April 11, 2009 Author Share Posted April 11, 2009 Back on topic, we have one on the way and I'll post some benchmarks up as soon as its live and I get it done. That is great to hear Adam. My hope to collect some information about these CPUs in regards to using them to host game servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Benchmarks don't mean anything. Those processors are still too new to be used in production. Newer CPUs still have too much latency on specific instructions compared to older processors.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookies911 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Well im getting 6 of them soon.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 Well im getting 6 of them soon.... Im getting 3 BMW's soon too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.