|
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:59:19PM -0400, Joseph Mack wrote:
->
-> Jacob Coby wrote:
-> >
->
-> > Sow now I'm looking into buying a 1U server (1.x p4 celeron, 256mb of ram)
-> > to act as both a firewall and as the LVS Director
->
-> I have not used a celeron, but without a cache, you're getting half the
performance
-> for 3/4 the cost. I don't know how important the cost is, but you'd
-> get better performance with a CPU with some cache on it.
Sorry Joe, not to get argumentative, but I respectfully disagree.
The Celeron has a cache, but it is 128K as opposed to 256K on the
older Pentium 4s and 512K cache on the latest (C model) Pentium 4s.
This is true going back all the way to the Celeron 300A, which was
based on a Pentium II core and ran at 300 MHz. The cache runs at
full processor speed, unless they have changed that recently:
http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/celeron/detail.htm
The modern Celeron also has a 400 MHz front side bus (bus to RAM -
uses PC1600 DDR, though PC2100 will work just fine). Modern P4s have
either a 533 MHz or 800 MHz front side bus. The Celerons do NOT support
hyperthreading, but that is not a big deal in most cases.
Here is a handy link to a comparison table:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-32.html#comparison_table
It does not have the latest P4s and Celerons on it, but comparing an
earlier 2.0 GHz Celeron to a similar 2.0 GHz P4 with similar memory
(DDR266 aka PC2100), the Celeron seems to give about 80-90% of the
performance of a P4.
Looking at my favorite vendor, http://www.newegg.com, a 2.2 GHz Celeron
retail box set goes for $77 shipped (2.0 GHz is $67, 2.4 GHz is $92),
and 2.4 GHz Celeron retail box is $167 shipped.
This works out to about 80% of the performance at 55% of the cost.
All in all, if top performance is not a requirement, the Celeron seems
like a reasonable choice to me. For an LVS director, I suspect it
should work fine.
--
John Cronin
mailto: `echo NjsOc3@xxxxxxxxxxx | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
|
