Server computer vs Desktop computer

[TheAgustin]

I'm starting this thread because I really really want some advice, as I'm buying a new computer briefly:

I'm unsure if I'd be better off with a server computer running two AMD 4180 6 cores 2.6Ghz in a dual socket c32 mobo, or with a desktop AMD phenom 6 cores x 3.3Ghz on an AM3 mobo.

My job requires doing image processing, database development (one user only) and testing in different virtual windows boxes running in the OS and working with several running applications.

The server mobo has the benefit of the amount of RAM I can pour (max DDR3-1333), then again the desktop motherboard would support less ram but faster (DDR3-2200)

So, what would you suggest me ? Would I really benefit with a lot of slower cores ? or I would be better of with less but faster cores ?


---

Here is my previous thread about this:

http://forums.mysuperpc.com/showthread.php?3420-Crazy-powerful-desktop-computer

[zburns]

Hello Agustin:

Do you have a feel for how much RAM you are planning to use and are you planning to use multiple hard drives. Your database development and testing - how much storage space at one time does this occupy for 'a current project you are working on'?

I have been looking at your question for a while now and will do another post today, hopefully, with helpful comments.

[TheAgustin]

The database space will not grow larger than 50gbs for the next 1 or 2 years, although I run the developer version of SQL Server 2008, I'm the only one user.

The thing is I need to run lots of concurrent applications at the same time.

As for memory, it would either be 16gb ddr3-2100 if it's a desktop or 24gb ddr3-1333. Currently I have 8gb and it's topped up most of the time unless I start closing applications.

I would get 2 hard drives, on ssd 128gb which is kind of affordable, and a second one 15k rpm.

So desktop or server ? sounds a tight decision, 12 cores 2.6 ghz or 6 cores 3.3 ghz, the question would be "what application really really benefits with more than 4 cores". I know sql server does, but not for my particular case. Perhaps I'm biasing myself toward the desktop one.

cheers : )

[zburns]

Couple of quick questions. Do you run SQL Server 2008 or SQL Server 2008 R2? If you are not running 2008 R2, do you plan to upgrade? Also, are you 'building a computer' or buying one? ( Does not matter, just curious !)

Earlier I mentioned Task Manager on your present computer. You can see whether or not all 4 cores are being used and their relative % of use of all the cores at one moment in time. You can also see the % memory usage. It would really help to know for a fact that you are running 'x' percent of each of the cores. Your requirements for RAM are proportional to the % use of each of the cores. Whether you go to a 'server' design which allows much more RAM than a desktop is validated by your knowing that you are presently actually running 4 cores at some decent percentage. If you are only presently running one core, then your RAM requirements are being distorted, and, you have no starting point to figure out the basic question (EDIT) of two cpus or just one - or the starting point is only an approximation.

Said differently, if 8 gb is topping out right now and only one core is being used, you need to know that; it simply takes a lot of guesswork out of the equation.

To get into Task Manager, Click Ctl-Alt-Delete at the same time. Then you get a soft blue screen with several choices in a column, Task Manager at the bottom of the list -- Click on it. You get a small window with several choices going horizontally. Click on 'Performance' and you will get a multiple window that looks like an Oscilloscope screen -- you can look at cpu or memory; % percent use is obvious.

Once you are in Task Manager, you need to create the real time running situation where your RAM is 'topping out' and then look to see if you are using a respectable % of each core at the same time. Looking at Task Manager at the same time an application is running, is the way you use Task Manager.

2nd EDIT, 11:45pm - If you are running essentially only one core on the quad when 8gb RAM is topped out, then you would not really have a RAM problem but a cpu problem.

[TheAgustin]

Hey there ! I'll build it myself, get the part and put it all together, I'll receive help from a friend who does it but he's more on the office type computer. Dell has been a good option always for me, but what I'm looking for now I wouldn't be able to afford it. SQL Server 2008 R2 (10.50.xx) already. But there are other smaller databases running previous versions, such as 2005 or 2008.

Taskman is a handy friend :) When I say the 8gb are topped out I mean the Taskman is telling me 7+ gb are in use (the performance tab) when at a reasonably high computing level. I failed to monitor the CPUs activity in the past, so I'll describe what I'm seeing right now which may not be the most accurate reading: I see 4 cores, all of them are noisy, the last 2 are averaging 75%, and the first 2 averaging 20% with some meaningful peaks. Right now I'm not doing much processings though, it's just background noise from running services and open applications.

[zburns]

First Edit after final post. This is a really long post and I apologize for the length; however, there are lots of issues, questions or topics, as I see it, that must be 'known' in order to proceed to a conclusion.

I apologize for the two day delay in my posts, but a situation occured that I had to deal with. I looked for 'Taskman' to see exactly what it looked like, but I could not find a suitable description that fit. So where is it or what is it part of on your software.

The reason I am being persistent is that 'Task Manager' is part of my Vista software. Please give me a link to 'Taskman' if possible. Since you have Vista also, I do not yet understand why you cannot use Vista Task Manager, which gives you essentially, 'instataneous real time readings' that leaves no guess work. If TASKMAN is 'giving you a written report' that you have to read, that takes time, and, the way I see it, that is not real time.

New Subject follows: If you go to this link you will find a trainload of info on SQL Server 2008 R2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx Once you are on this page, you will see that the right side vertical scroll bar is quite small. Slide it down about 40% from the top (a little short of the halfway point on the monitor). You are looking for the following subheading: 'SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer (64-bit) x64' followed by this description: 'The following table shows system requirements for SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer (64-bit) x64:'

In this section, just referenced, you will see three headings: Processor, Operating System and RAM. Just looking at all three from a 'global thinking viewpoint' inspires a lot of 'related thoughts or possibilites' that helps you figure what is best. To me, our discussion centers around SQL Server 2008 R2, Vista, choice of one or two processors and maximum RAM -- they are all interconnected. Please look at the Operating System 'listings'. Vista as well as SQL Server 2008 R2 are two of the choices. Many of the other Application Headings -- ones not for 'Developer' do not contain Vista.

Things I do not understand about what I am looking at: Everything in the Operating System Section is 'an Operating System'. What I looking at implies that two operating systems, Vista and SQL Server 2008 R2 exist side by side and operate side by side. If I think of Vista as a 'complete, covering all bases, operating system' that serves as an 'envelope' to allow a 'single topic operating system -- SQL Server 2008 R2 -- to operate within the 'Vista envelope' makes some sense to me. However, the two of them operating side by side does not make sense. Vista covering lots of applications and the SQL Server covering a single topic 'Developer'. My question is how does Vista interact with SQL Server and vice versa?

I can visualize SQL Server 2008 R2 as a 'mini operating system' that means that it deals specifically with 'virtualization of developer projects' which may involve tons of data, but nevertheless, all the data is related to a single topic. Vista (Win 7) as an operating system can interact with thousands of topics that are unrelated in content.

Now the above 4 paragraphs do not deal specifically with your new build specifications, but it is nice to know a subject well before making decisions that impact work for a number of years going forward. Specifically, regarding your build, I think you are heading towards the Server Computer because of the RAM. I would like to understand better the Vista/SQL Server (4 paras above) relationship before saying 'server build - yes' and 'single processor build - no'.

Basically, you are limited to 32 gig RAM on the single processor build, and, something like 192 gig on the server build -- need to recheck this but memory says this is what I read in the specs earlier. You are at 8 gig right now and topped out. You previously stated 50 gbs good for several years. So if you are topped out right now at 8 gig and you double that to give you 16 gig (with or without) headroom right now, what happens when you top that out? I will give you a unrelated example of what I am talking about from Photoshop in a separate post later today.

The other reason to go the server route is to get the speed of the two cpus combined. The operating freq of the chips being lower on the server is a factor but the server should be faster if the two processors work together in 'an efficient manner via the circuit and software design'. Everything I am saying is theoretical from my perspective. If I am really 'offbase' anywhere, I would like to hear from someone 'specifically as to where I am stumbling'. I would like to 'read some creditable article(s), etc. that explain individual topics within the 'envelope' I am talking about.

Summing up, I am trying to get to the point to where I, and you, can ask questions of two types: One question relates to two (four core) server cpus (with or without virtual cores) running in 'tandem' or a 'partnership' with each other to serve a specific software routine such as your Developer 'SQL Server 2008 R2' . Here we are talking to a hardware (cpu) specialist that can give some assurance of the pluses and minuses of what you are trying to do hardware wise. The answer may boil down to a simple point, and, that is how well the software is designed to run on multiple cores simultaneously -- will the software automatically default to any number of multiple cores or is it specifically designed for 'two cores' or 'four cores' . If what I just said was the final answer (ie, limited to two or four cores), that would force you into the single cpu desktop configuration and not the server, probably.

The second question relates to the software design and whether or not it is designed to run well on multiple cores, how many cores, etc.. Regardless of the amount of dialogue you, I and others go thru with these posts, unless one of us is an expert on 'specific cpu multiple core knowledge' and 'specific software (that you will use) knowledge', you or I, and any others who advise you, need to 'verify our theory' across the board. This last paragraph relates specifically to the software you presently use or contemplate using.

Closing comment: I will edit this post during the day as I reread it several times during the day. I will also keep track of the number of edits, to save you the trouble of constantly rereading it to find the edit.

[TheAgustin]

taskman = the task manager you are talking about !! Task Manager !
I'll keep reading through your post, seems amazing :: )

[zburns]

Do not let the length and detail be overwhelming. The comments are basically my thought process or my roadmap to get to a conclusion. I am on unfamiliar ground, as I assume you are. You need, as well as I do, to be able to ask the important questions. You are looking at 'items to be considered'. They can be reduced to a list of straight forward questions, probably.

[zburns]

I think I answered one of my questions. On the page 'Hardware and Software Requirements for Installing SQL Server 2008 R2' at this link (same as above in long post) http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx , the following are three separate 'Developer' Applications: (1) SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer (64-bit) IA64 (IA refers to Itanium processor or faster for the older years), (2) SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer (64-bit) x64 and (3) SQL Server Developer (32-bit). Under each of these headings are listed Processor, Operating Systems and Memory.

The first 64 bit 'IA64 App' listed is for a slow Itanium processor and requires an OS with Itanium in the name. There are six choices of OS, all 64 bit, such as 'Windows Server 2003 SP2 64-bit Itanium Datacenter or Enterprise and four more choices, total, for both 2003 and 2008.

This would lead me to conclude that your operating system is Vista and it runs your applications in either 64 bit or 32 bit. This would answer my question of the 'interrelationship between Vista and the application, SQL Server 2008 R2 Developer (64-bit) x64 (or 32 bit version).

For the Developer versions, Vista is listed (among other OS names) as an operating system for both 64 and 32 bit. Vista is listed as an OS for some, maybe about 40%, of the other applications.