[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: lon-capa-admin
Subject: Re: [LON-CAPA-admin] Server Configuration Questions
From: Gerd Kortemeyer <korte () lite ! msu ! edu>
Date: 2009-07-09 10:15:36
Message-ID: 41D6874A-AEBE-4866-B0FF-F4E20C3E03A2 () lite ! msu ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]
Hi,
On Jul 9, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Todd Ruskell wrote:
>
> We're getting some new hardware, and that has raised a couple
> questions I'd like to ask the community:
>
> 1) 32-bit or 64-bit build? Other than simply being able to access
> more memory per core, does that bring real performance advantages
> in LON-CAPA? Or are there other real performance advantages to
> moving to a 64-bit build? Or is it more like, "hey, it's 64-bit
> hardware, so why not?"
I would say so. You will have more throughput, and sooner or later,
you'll have to change anyway.
> We are currently 32-bit, so moving to 64-bit will require some file
> conversion, but that shouldn't be too bad.
Yes, this is fairly well tested by now. You have probably already
found http://www.lon-capa.org/hardwareupgrade.html
>
> 2) As some of you know, our IT folks are moving to a virtualized
> infrastructure. We currently have 1 library server and 2 access
> servers, each of which has dual-core hyperthreaded hardware.
> Although the servers are virtualized, the above hardware is
> dedicated to only the designated LON-CAPA server.
>
> The new hardware consists of blade servers with *lots* of cores, and
> even more memory. I've already been informed that we can't claim an
> entire blade each for the library and access servers :( but I can
> see that would probably be overkill.
This is somewhat odd, though. Virtualized blades?
>
> So finally the question: If you had the option, which of the
> following hypothetical situations is "better" for optimal
> performance? Would you prefer 1 monster virtual library server
> with 6 cores and 12 GB of RAM (or more if 64-bit). Or would you
> prefer 1 library and 2 access servers, each with 2 cores and 4 GB of
> RAM (all virtual, most if not all of the time running on the same
> blade)?
If it's the same blade, make it one monster library server to avoid
overhead. More servers make more sense if you have dedicated hardware
and dedicated DISKS.
> Or is there some other optimal distribution of cores and memory?
> In either case, the contents of /home are located on a SAN.
Yes, make it one monster library machine. Same blade, same connection
to the SAN ... makes no sense to split it.
>
> I do know that if we went to the single-server model we'd no longer
> be able to offer up our access server as spare machine, and we'd
> also not be able to offload users to another spare machine.
Why not? You can always offload. You can also offer your library
machine as
> Are there other reasons to stay away from a single "monster" machine?
Nope.
>
> Back in the day when we were really limited to the number of cores
> per physical machine, having more than one machine made sense. But
> now it seems like having three virtual servers running on the same
> hardware is just adding an extra, unnecessary layer that slows
> things down.
That would also be my assessment.
- Gerd.
_______________________________________________
LON-CAPA-admin mailing list
LON-CAPA-admin@mail.lon-capa.org
http://mail.lon-capa.org/mailman/listinfo/lon-capa-admin
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic