Ingenious
Well-known member
As an end user (and a server layperson) the most important OS for me is the one that runs quickest with Xenforo and on that particular server set-up. Is there much difference really in speed between the various OS?
They've arrived :)
- Thread starter Slavik
- Start date
As an end user (and a server layperson) the most important OS for me is the one that runs quickest with Xenforo and on that particular server set-up. Is there much difference really in speed between the various OS?
I'm speaking from experience. On paper, software raid looks great. We've had servers run it no problems. My point is, WHEN a drive fails, software RAID is generally less reliable at fixing.
When a disk partialy fails on a software RAID array, the OS continues trying to access the damaged sectors of the disk. This causes the disk I/O to stall. After a much longer period than with hardware raid, the disk is finally dripped. If the server is rebooted, the delay happens again.
In comparison, a hardware based RAID setup will drop the disk much earlier, with no reboot delay.
It's all about the recovery time. As far as I'm concerned, if a recovery of my data is going to take a couple of hours on software raid, vs half an hour on hardware, I'd take hardware. Then you've got the CPU usage to take into account as well. On a Quad Core 2.5Ghz you'll probably not notice it a huge amount however.
So by saying software RAID is better 'in all aspects' - theres no truth in that. Hardware raid has the benefit of lower CPU loads and faster recovery times. Then you've got the BBU on a hardware setup, reducing the risk of any pending writes getting lost during a power failure. Then theres the hot swapping. If a drive goes bad in a hardware array, assuming you've got it setup correctly, its a case of swapping out the bad drive - no downtime. You cant do that with software, you can only do a hot spare.
So, if performance, uptime and reliability are things important to anyone, hardware is a better option.
If people want to self manage, they could stick anything they want on there.
However, when i'm managing the server for them, I will be using an enterprise level OS based entirely on stability and reliability.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
Out of the box, Debian uses less resources than CentOS (even before tweaking). About 2 MB of ram before installing LAMP and about 10 MB after installing (total OS memory used).
Ubuntu which is based on Debian uses a little more (about 25 MB with lamp).
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
Slavik, what sort of processors are these? I know you've said Intel quad core, but what type? I take it they're from the server family, so are they Itanium, 5000 sequence, e3, e5 or e7 family?
Mike Edge
Well-known member
It only being 2.5Ghz.. My guess is most likely Yorkfield Q8300 or E5420
Q8300
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
Oh... they're desktop Core 2. That's a bit light, isn't it?
Not particularly no, when comparing to the equivilent xeon offering which would be 3x the price and only offer a fraction better performance.
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
Ok... I think we'll agree to disagree on that one.
Mike Edge
Well-known member
If you want, I could set you up on a Xeon E3 1230 system starting from £140 a month no problem
Would need a couple of days lead time however.Similar threads
- Suggestion
- Question
