Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

1 dual processor server or 2 single processor servers?

Last response: in Components
Share
July 14, 2010 7:25:11 PM

Hi,

we were almost ready to build on a dual processor server, but someone in the meeting asked the question : why not have 2 single processor servers instead?

there were a fair number of advantages to this logic as I saw it
1. price
2. if one server is down, the work does not stop 100% since the other server is running and since we would have the backup of vmware images of the other server we can reallocate the resources quickly so that the work does not stop.

to give you a background of our work, our servers will basically have about 6 to 8 virtual machines and different development teams would be working on different platforms on these virtual machines.

what do you think? 1 dual processor server or 2 single processor servers?

what are the pros and cons of each of these setups?

Best solution

July 14, 2010 7:51:43 PM
Share

2 CPUs in servers are better than 1 CPU IMHO.

1) Total cost of ownership is far better on a single server with multiple cpus, you do not have to draw as much from the wall
2) You do not have to keep up on warranties for 2 single cpu servers with more hardware to break (twice the hard disks to break, twice the psus to fry..)

I could go on for a while with these, but here are some things that you might want to think about.

What type of software do you use and how is it's licensing model, it it "per server" , "per core" , "per cpu" ? All of these things could end up costing you less or more.

Load balancing is a good thing, can't do it on one server though :( 

If costs permit, 2 multi-processor systems would be the way to go!
July 14, 2010 8:19:45 PM

^+1 to bfunk

A single server makes alot of sense, but I'm rather a fan of redundancy :D 
Related resources
July 14, 2010 9:08:43 PM

The single cpu servers will be quad or oct core? Althought there is much extra expense with supporting 2 servers instead of 1, if the redundacy is needed then theres no ther way to go but to use multiple servers. I've hundreds of servers 10 feet from me, some go down often and others run for years...
July 14, 2010 9:12:15 PM

popatim said:
The single cpu servers will be quad or oct core? Althought there is much extra expense with supporting 2 servers instead of 1, if the redundacy is needed then theres no ther way to go but to use multiple servers. I've hundreds of servers 10 feet from me, some go down often and others run for years...


wow, their legs must hurt! ... .... .... ugh, is it 5 yet?!

Yeah, I guess the main question to ask in the next meeting is this.

"What is worth more, up time or cost?"

I heard this thing on the radio the other day, no idea who said it but there are only 3 ways of doing things. Good, Cheap, and Fast. The only thing is, you can only pick 2 of the 3 things.
July 15, 2010 2:49:18 AM

"their legs must hurt"


Oh thats bad... LOL
July 15, 2010 5:38:18 AM

Thanks guys,
very helpful comments, as suggested will find out from the guys on what is important to us for our present setup.
@popatim - the single servers are xeon quad core.

July 15, 2010 5:38:41 AM

Best answer selected by falconhead999.
July 15, 2010 5:44:48 AM

Let us know how it turns out!
July 15, 2010 5:45:24 AM

popatim said:
"their legs must hurt"


Oh thats bad... LOL



But it feels sooo goooood
!