Best Server for XenForo Speed

[arr0w]

I have two budget dedicated servers in mind, could you guys please give me suggestions on which is better for xenForo?

The servers are the following:

SERVER 1

Phenom II x4 840
8GB DDR3 RAM
128 GB SSD
20TB Monthly Transfer

SERVER 2
Ivy Bridge Intel i5 3.1GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) * it doesn't say what chip exactly.
8 GB DDR3
Hard disk 2 x 1TB SATA2
Bandwidth 100Mbps

I know of course that the i5 is a much better (and newer) CPU than the old Phenom; but this has an SSD drive. Will xenForo perform better with a less powerful CPU but with an SSD or with a more powerful CPU but using a conventional HDD?

Both have the same amount of RAM and bandwidth isn't really an issue.

I'm going to ask if I can get an SSD with the i5, but just in case I can't get it, I'd like to hear your opinions.

Thanks!

-arr0w

 

[Moshe1010]

it doesn't say what chip exactly.

It makes a lot of difference in this case.

 

[WSWD]

I don't think there is a 3.1GHz chip that TurboBoost's up to 3.8, but I might be mistaken. It's usually the 3.4's that do that.

Just remember as well that running a single drive (i.e. the SSD drive) in any server is really unacceptable. You need some redundancy in case things fail. If you do go with the SSD, make sure you take very regular off-site backups. You should do that with Server #2 as well, but it's even more important with the #1.

 

[arr0w]

I don't think there is a 3.1GHz chip that TurboBoost's up to 3.8, but I might be mistaken. It's usually the 3.4's that do that.

Just remember as well that running a single drive (i.e. the SSD drive) in any server is really unacceptable. You need some redundancy in case things fail. If you do go with the SSD, make sure you take very regular off-site backups. You should do that with Server #2 as well, but it's even more important with the #1.

I've always made regular off-site backups regardless of my HDD setup. I'm just paranoid about it, I only trust having the backups on my own HDDs and DVDs.

It makes a lot of difference in this case.

But the question still stands, what's better for xF performance, more powerful CPU with conventional HDD or less powerful CPU with SSD?

Thanks for your replies!

 

[WSWD]

Unless you have a very large forum, you probably aren't going to be maxing out either the CPU or the disk i/o, so it probably isn't going to matter one way or another.

I would go with the SSD drive though personally, as it gives you room to grow, since i/o will be the first bottleneck.

 

[Amaury]

Go with Mike Edge.

 

[craigiri]

None of this matters unless you detail out the forum traffic, posts, etc.......

We have a server with specs not much different and serve 2 million+ pages per month with ES search, etc.
(hearth.com).

https://www.quantcast.com/hearth.com

In fact, I think we are the 3rd busiest Xenforo site in the known universe (some hold their data back from quantcast, so we can't be sure).....

Our server is quad core Xeon 2.6 with 8G Ram and nothing special on the hard drives.

I think your HOST is of much more importance than your server in most cases....based on the above. Also, your post count is important to some degree because ES and Mysql as well as other parts of the system like to have room to cache....

Our server load rarely exceeds 1 - and CPU use is usually below 30%.

 

[Moshe1010]

I've always made regular off-site backups regardless of my HDD setup. I'm just paranoid about it, I only trust having the backups on my own HDDs and DVDs.



But the question still stands, what's better for xF performance, more powerful CPU with conventional HDD or less powerful CPU with SSD?

Thanks for your replies!

Specs doesn't mean anything. It's all about server configuration and optimization eventually.

 

[motowebmaster]

I recently migrated from vb3 to xf using a server with dual SSDs - they do make a difference.

Try the server with the single SSD, but you should be backing up to diverse system at least once every 12 Hours. Either to an internal LAN, or encrypted to another service provider. Some creative caching can help overcome the slower processor.

 

[Slavik]

I have two budget dedicated servers in mind, could you guys please give me suggestions on which is better for xenForo?

I'm going to ask if I can get an SSD with the i5, but just in case I can't get it, I'd like to hear your opinions.

Thanks!

-arr0w

SSD's will give you blisteringly fast performance. In terms of the CPU's... the xeons will be faster, but I imagine the phenom will perform just fine to be honest. Most bottlenecks nowdays are HDD based and not CPU based.

 

[arr0w]

Thanks everyone for your replies. You've been very helpful.

Try the server with the single SSD, but you should be backing up to diverse system at least once every 12 Hours. Either to an internal LAN, or encrypted to another service provider. Some creative caching can help overcome the slower processor.

Because of the single drive and not the SSD perse? You'd make the same recomendation if it was a single conventional HDD or SSDs are less reliable on servers? Like I said previously, I'm used to make regular off-site backups, so that won't be a problem; but I am curious to know if there's a problem with SSDs, I thought they were more reliable than conventional drives.

SSD's will give you blisteringly fast performance. In terms of the CPU's... the xeons will be faster, but I imagine the phenom will perform just fine to be honest. Most bottlenecks nowdays are HDD based and not CPU based.

Potentially I could get a server with dual Intel Xeon 5520 and 24 GB of RAM for almost the same price, but with a conventional HDD.

 

[TPerry]

Potentially I could get a server with dual Intel Xeon 5520 and 24 GB of RAM for almost the same price, but with a conventional HDD.

I'm paying base of $55 for this exact combo from ServerComplete (of course I pay over that as one of them has dual 256GB SSD's in it and the other dual 1TB SATA HDDs, both in software RAID).

 

[fos]

Consider linode.com. They are beta testing a hybrid ssd/hdd that provides the best of both worlds. Their system caches short term r/w and then ultimately saves to a raid hdd system for redundancy. You can read the thread here.

I have been with Linode since 2009. They are a very good value and are continuing to improve their offerings.

Jeff

 

[Mouth]

I'm paying base of $55 for this exact combo from ServerComplete.

You must have got a sweet deal. Their website says $80 as a limited special. Their support statement for dedi's is also very concerning

 

[TPerry]

You must have got a sweet deal. Their website says $80 as a limited special. Their support statement for dedi's is also very concerning

They show that price... but once I agreed the price was dropped to $55 base. And their statement is a basic unmanaged server statement. They have no responsibility for the management of your server - you do. If you want managed services they do offer them. The few times I've contacted them on something (upgrade to the server, re-provisioning the server, etc) they responded quickly.
I know that if I go to add another server from my Account Control Panel it lists the price at $55 still.

 

[TPerry]

Consider linode.com. They are beta testing a hybrid ssd/hdd that provides the best of both worlds. Their system caches short term r/w and then ultimately saves to a raid hdd system for redundancy. You can read the thread here.

I have been with Linode since 2009. They are a very good value and are continuing to improve their offerings.

Jeff

You mean like SSD cached? RamNode has had that for a while. https://clientarea.ramnode.com/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&id=39

 

[WSWD]

You mean like SSD cached? RamNode has had that for a while. https://clientarea.ramnode.com/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&id=39

Tons of hosts have that because it's cheaper than a pure SSD system. Linode is remarkably behind the times. In a hosting environment, it's largely useless, and doesn't yield much performance increase over a standard mechanical drive. If you're going to go SSD, go SSD. Don't bother with caching or other nonsense.

 

[TPerry]

Tons of hosts have that because it's cheaper than a pure SSD system. Linode is remarkably behind the times. In a hosting environment, it's largely useless, and doesn't yield much performance increase over a standard mechanical drive. If you're going to go SSD, go SSD. Don't bother with caching or other nonsense.

With them, you get 4x the HD space than with the pure SSD on their 1GB plan. All other factors remain the same. I just noticed to that they are offering DDOS mitigation.

 

[WSWD]

With them, you get 4x the HD space than with the pure SSD on their 1GB plan. All other factors remain the same. I just noticed to that they are offering DDOS mitigation.

Right, because everything is stored on a mechanical drive. The SSD is simply the "front-end" so to speak, for caching the data. It's really useless, to be honest. And yes, they started offering DDoS mitigation a few weeks ago through CNServers. The only downside is that it's 3rd party, instead of their own hardware. It backhauls to another datacenter entirely, in Portland. Nothing wrong with that, but it adds some added time to the route. On the plus side, it makes it cheap, as they don't have to purchase their own mitigation hardware.

 

[fos]

So far the benchmarks indicate that Linode's beta system are pretty good. Once it is out of beta, it will be used by all of the servers, no cost.

I don't think Linode's price and performance can be beat. I have tried numerous alternatives, nothing has had the resources and price (value) that you get with Linode.

You can try them for almost no cost, you only pay for the time that you are actually using a Linode. Set one up and try it for a week. If it doesn't meet your needs, expansion (or reduction) is an easy option from the control panel. If you can't find the performance you need, move on.