Fastest Computer 4 SQL Queries

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
=) i'm not sure he could afford that...having a 1-1.5k budget lol. Have you got some updated sites with info where the xeons are outperforming similarly scaled opterons? I'm all ears if you have some. I don't take anybodies word on anything, so you'll need to back it up with real data.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
I'm sorry you're going to make me cry... Raid 0 on a sql server? I hope this is for a Web Site where you keep track of people's stats for CS:S or something...Cuz otherwise i might have to smack U. If the mobo you picked up was a nf4 asus board, you could buy 3 hds and put them in raid 5 (at the expense of the cpu...unless you went with an x2 4200 or something...[asus nf4 boards have built in raid 5]). To put together a server for under 2000 is hard... Unless it's a gaming server, or a school project.

The more i think about it...You said this is not on a LAN...What good is a database if it's not on a LAN...Well, it could be used for querying over a WAN...but that's hardly better then a LAN lol. It must be a stand-alone machine, where one person sits and inputs data from printed db's. God why... Say it ain't so?! More data please, allay my fears!

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
Budget oriented,

820 D processor
P5WD2 mobo (supports raid 5)
a couple of sata drives (3+)
2GB of DDR2

Pretty close to my old setup other than I used raptor 10K drives in raid 5.

SQL is all about IO and machine bandwidth, not cpu power.

Chances are my site hs 500+ online and go do a search. My search times are less than 1/10 of a second and I have a very busy forum.


<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>
 
Heh that's better heh. Yea i've been out to your site a few times, i have it linked in my favs. I haven't posted out there though (er i don't think i have....maybe i did). I'm limited while at work by my bw, so i usually can't tell if a site is running slow or not. That's the problem with colleges (and community colleges...), you're sharing your bw with god knows how many people at a time.

How'd you like those raptors (74s?) in raid 5? Did u actually use onboard raid 5? Or did you buy a card? I haven't been terribly impressed by the onboard stuff so far. At least with the boards i've used.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+ (down)][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4x5][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
The raptors are nice in raid and very dependable so far. Huge improvement in database read times with 10K and 15K drives. You would have to spend a lot to get 15K U320 SCSI setup w/ RAID controller compared to the SATA Raptor solution.

I have run both 4x raid 0 and 4x raid 5 on the onboard controller.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>
 
Yea i haven't heard anyone complain about them so far (raptors). My little 36 has been a rock <knocks on wood>...and i travel fairly often with it, so it doesn't just sit around.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+ (down)][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4x5][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
First, I'm only home once every 2 weeks, so I couldn't get around to reply.
Second, a DB on a stand-alone workstation is good if the DB is static and only the queries change. Also, the DB comes on DVD and the queries can be recovered, so RAID 0 is an option.

For now, I'm taking the X2 3800+ with 2*1GB CL2.5 Roswill memory. I could take the 4000+ Venice, which is a bit less and features a 200Mhz high freq and double the cache, I wonder which is better for this sort of thing.
This is what I'm buying from Newegg - only the small expensive stuff which are worth buying abroad. The rest is not really dependant on these two.

If someone has a better idea, I'd like to know.

<b>Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place upon man and upon beast and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the land and it shall burn and shall not be quenched
 
It's cool, i'm on the road more then i'd like too...but not nearly as much as you are.

So security or size is an issue with this? Size probably or you wouldn't have said dvd. So is this like a logistics machine or something, where you're checking orders to make sure they got though...though every major vendor i've worked with has everything in databases off of either mainframes or unix boxes with lapdogs. We've used stand-alone stuff with things like pay stubs, where a high speed scanner looks like it's shuffling cards... Sorry you just have my curiosity up. =)

Sounds like a pretty sweet machine. So you know, going with 2gb may mean that you have to use 333 instead of 400mhz ram. There are ALOT of ram out there that won't do 400 because of the controller on the amd processors in a 2x1gb or a 4x512mb formation. There are a few reviews out there that have information about the big ram, but not many. The only one i remember off-hand that did well in a 2x1gb, 2 3 2 1T 200fsb (3200), was the mushkin high perf stuff. Runs about $300 from newegg. But i haven't used any formation of 2x1gb so i can't personally vouch for any of them. I have 1gb in 4 machines heh, and 4x512 in a xeon system (that does squat...but by god we hit our <i>standard</i>).

I'd stick with the x2, it's fairly cheap, and will perform pretty well for you. (better then the 4000+ on most of your db work, dependant on how the db was setup and how you access it).

edit: Also, i saw no one had recommended a mobo for you. The Asus nf4 boards all* support raid 0, 1, 0+1; The Deluxe and Premium boards support 5 as well, on the Sata controller only. Obviously the sata would somewhat limit you to sata drives. Almost all of the nf4 boards have some flavour of raid on them, raid 5 is a little more rare. There are only two companies i can think of that had it, with an nf4. I think the high-end dfi board had raid 5 available on it...

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+ (down)][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.4x5][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by apesoccer on 09/09/05 10:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
"On the road"? More like "in the army" 🙁 I'm home thu 16:00 through sun morning though only once every 2 weeks.

Security is a big issue, hence the stand-alone-ness.

I thought taking 2*1GB instead of 4*512 solved the 333Mhz problem the hammers have, are you sure of this?

'bout RAID, I can always use Windows' built in RAID support, THG has a great guide on how to enable it (exists only in 2K Server\Advanced Server). I've been using it's mirroring on a computer and I'm very pleased. But that probably won't be necessary since RAID 5 is a bit too expensive for me and 0 comes with most mobos.

<b>Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place upon man and upon beast and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the land and it shall burn and shall not be quenched
 
Well, this has sort of been an on-going debate here. Since none of us actually have 2 - 1gb sticks, we can't verify or denigh either way. So, we've spend a good deal of time looking at tech review sites. Where there is very very little reviews about 2 gb, most of which are in the 4x512 variety. And the only ones capable of 400mhz, so far, in a 4x512 are tccd chips, and at a downgraded 2T over the 1T timings. There are a lot of people who are making claims that 2x1gb will work at 400, but not a single person has been able to come up with a review, or a screenshot of their own ram running at those speeds. I've come up with one review, and it was to that mushkin stuff i quoted to you earlier. Hrm...<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=117286#117286" target="_new">linkage (discussion)</A>...<A HREF="http://forums.rojakpot.com/showthread.php?p=215193" target="_new">Makes statement that the reviewed Mushkins ran at 1T</A>...<A HREF="http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=229&var2=0" target="_new">Link to Mushkin 2x1GB review...</A>...shew and their you have it...if you do find more information specifically regarding 2x1gb, by all means pass it on. I'll do the same. There have been several <i>discussions</i> on this issue heh. Do a ssearch in the memory section.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x4][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
Intel CPU's have MUCH WORSE memory performance than AMD, so what the hell is that "AMD sucks at 2T" crap ?

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
 
That "crap" is the FACT that running 233 fsb @ 1T is FASTER (ie does more work) then 250 fsb at 2T. Noob. Do some research. Every site that has done a review on the 64bit 939 chips says that 1T timings are the MOST important factor in the timing's for AMD processors. When OC'ing you can get a higher bus speed by going to 2T, however, you still hit a wall before you overcome the loss you incur by changing from 1T. I'm not saying you suddenly lose 50% of your memory speed/bw...i'm saying its the most important timing change you can make. Again...do a little research before jumping to conclusions.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x4][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
That was true for xp's maybe...i don't know...i haven't oc'd a xp. I'm sorry but you're just wrong in regards to 64's.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2226&p=21" target="_new">A Command Rate of 1T is significantly faster than memory running at 2T.</A>
Click to expand...

edit: Just reread the last two responses i sent out...heh. I'm not going to take them back, but i think i might have gotten a lil sand in my vagina...god i need some sleep.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x4][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by apesoccer on 09/12/05 11:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
I was comparing it to INTEL.

So the verdict is: AMD has much better memory performance than Intel, it does not matter if AMD has 1T or 2T.
AMD can keep it's core working, because RAM is not lagging behind so much, as it is lagging on Intel.

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by HansGruber on 09/13/05 07:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
I wonder how Intel does with 4 sticks of RAM, and with over 2GB ?

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
 
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68511

2GB 4x 512MB 400+ FSB 1:1

I have 8GB in one of my boxes, 2GB x 4

Works fine.

Bus bandwidth, Intel wins. If you got some benches you ran yourself we would love to see what you can muster up since I know you cannot backup what you preach. It takes good hardware and good ram in the first place, you cant throw crap in a box and expect it to turn to gold.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>
 
FUGGER, you do know that, internet is full of reviews that proof the fact, that AMD performs much better.
It's especially true with dual core CPU's, in which Intel is suffering because of lack of bandwith, and because the lack of low latency memory access.

edit: My grammar etc sucks. so do your best to understand this correctly.. :lol:

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by HansGruber on 09/13/05 11:55 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
You have not been paying attention.

Find any review and notice one obvious.

Intel DDR2 will be set to SPD super slack timing (4-4-4-15 or 5-5-5-15) and to top that off it will be using a ratio.

Notice on the AMD rig it is benched against, it is using 2-2-2-5 timing.

It takes the same effort to set timing on the intel as the AMD. But in benchmarks it truely hurts Intel performance.

I know you may be able to find one review with tight timing but 99% are done the way I described above. DO the reviewers do this to make AMD look better? Are they too stupid to know how to change from SPD on the intel system even though they did it a million times before? Maybe they wanted AMD to fare better in bandwidth related tests?

The heat sink crap was more bs.

Intel has made decent changes to the new dual cores such as 1066FSB and 2x2MB cache. The .065 drops the voltages and a modified layout shoud improve thermal disipation.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>
 
It's the performance in real world applications that matter, and NOT some "OMG, i have poor real world performance with meaningless numbers".

The heat sink crap was more bs.
Click to expand...
ROFL.

Get a life and stop lying. :lol:

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
 
"It's the performance in real world applications that matter, and NOT some "OMG, i have poor real world performance with meaningless numbers".

then why do you use Sandra a synthetic benchmark as a good rule of measure for bandwidth? Sure the on die controller helps latency and that inflates the synthetic. Kick over to Everest and the roles reverse and Intel takes the lead. Still synthetic tests but different test algo.

You know I am strong in bandwidth, I come from two bandwidth companies. SQL queries is also something I am familiar with.

I am sure stability is also a factor the originator of this thread is seeking.

<A HREF="http://www.xtremesystems.org" target="_new">www.xtremesystems.org</A>
 
Intel CPU's have MUCH WORSE memory performance than AMD, so what the hell is that "AMD sucks at 2T" crap ?
Click to expand...
Ok...first off, I'm comparing amd to itself, in it's regular form and in a reduced form. You wanted to know why Amd sucks at 2T...so i answered you, since you felt the need to jump on my case. My answer obviously revolves around the fact that running 1T timings are almost always going to be better then running 2T timings. It makes no statement whatsoever about amd being better or worse then Intel, which is what you're trying to make this in to. Troll.

If you had just wanted to know why 1T runs better then 2T, you would have stated the question differently. Don't try to change your reasons now, everything you've said is already out there.

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2400+][2000+][1.3][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x4][X 2.8x2][P4 3.0x2][P4-M 2.4][P4 1.3]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom