From: Derick H Siddoway
Date: March 19 1999 4:11pm
Subject: Re: fastCPU vs moreRAM
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/617
Message-Id: <10E7636F2771F4AB*/c=us/admd=attmail/prmd=amex/o=unresolved/ou=HUB1/ou=AMEX/s=Siddoway/g=Derick/i=H/@MHS>

My initial response is more RAM.  I reason that no matter how
fast your processor is, if you end up swapping stuff in and out
of memory, you're going to be held hostage by the disk's data
transfer rate.  Even with ultra-scsi, that's a heck of a lot
slower than memory accesses.

As an extreme case, a couple of years ago I ran some informal 
tests on a 386sx with 128MB of RAM versus a pentium200 with 8MB 
of RAM, and the 386 won almost every time.

-- 
derick


From:	scottm%phoenix.net@Internet on 03/18/99 03:51 PM
To:	mysql%lists.mysql.com@Internet
cc:	scottm%pobox.com@Internet (bcc: Derick H Siddoway/TC/TRS/American 
Express)
Subject:	fastCPU vs moreRAM


A partner and myself are going to be building a box to start our web dev
and hosting side business.  We're going to be running Linux with Apache
and MySQL (with Perl as the interface).  Should be pretty low load at
first, but we want to let the machine be as expandable as possible.

My question is for the intial build, should we focus more on faster CPU's
or on more RAM?  I'm curious as to which would be a better performer.  I
know it's good to have plenty of both *grin* but we (of course) have a
limited budget initially and would like to know which route is better to
start up with.

Thanks for any advice,

--
Scott Moseman       Got Linux?
scottm@stripped    scotech.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To request this thread, e-mail mysql-thread528@stripped
To unsubscribe, e-mail the address shown in the
List-Unsubscribe header of this message.
For additional commands, e-mail: mysql-help@stripped