[Tfug] Seeking general storage and CPU/mobo advice for updating my work machine

Wed Jun 24 19:18:24 MST 2015

Two fifth generation Intel i7 processors support ECC memory:

Intel® Core™ i7-5850EQ Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.40 GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/88094/Intel-Core-i7-5850EQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz
$435

and

Intel® Core™ i7-5700EQ Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.40 GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/88093/Intel-Core-i7-5700EQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz
$378

These 4th generation too:

CompareIntel® Core™ i7-4700EC Processor
(8M Cache, up to 2.70 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/75555/Intel-Core-i7-4700EC-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz>
Q1'14443 WTRAY: $459.00CompareIntel® Core™ i7-4702EC Processor
(8M Cache, up to 2.00 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/75556/Intel-Core-i7-4702EC-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-2_00-GHz>
Q1'14427 WTRAY: $459.00CompareIntel® Core™ i7-4700EQ Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.40 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/75469/Intel-Core-i7-4700EQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz>
Q2'13447 WTRAY: $378.00Intel® HD Graphics 4600

And these 3ed generation:

CompareIntel® Core™ i7-3517UE Processor
(4M Cache, up to 2.80 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/65713/Intel-Core-i7-3517UE-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_80-GHz>
Q2'12217 WTRAY: $330.00Intel® HD Graphics 4000CompareIntel® Core™ i7-3555LE
Processor
(4M Cache, up to 3.20 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/65712/Intel-Core-i7-3555LE-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz>
Q2'12225 WTRAY: $360.00Intel® HD Graphics 4000CompareIntel® Core™ i7-3612QE
Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.10 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/65710/Intel-Core-i7-3612QE-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz>
Q2'12435 WTRAY: $426.00Intel® HD Graphics 4000CompareIntel® Core™ i7-3615QE
Processor
(6M Cache, up to 3.30 GHz)
<http://ark.intel.com/products/65709/Intel-Core-i7-3615QE-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz>
Q2'12445 WTRAY: $393.00Intel® HD Graphics 4000

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Harry McGregor <micros at osef.org> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Here is my advice (and yes, I am going to top-post instead of inline or
> bottom post...).
>
> Storage, I would look at Raid10 (lvm on top, or luks and lvm) with SSD for
> the primary system storage.
>
> 240-250GB SSDs can be had for under $70 for OK drives, and about $100 for
> the higher end.  I would use two (or four) drives in raid10, and yes, I
> mean raid10.  Linux raid10 will stripe the reads, and with the low latency
> of SSDs, that works REALLY well.  SSD lifespan has been GREATLY overblown
> as a big issue, field experience shows that it's not an issue.
>
> For bulk storage, I like HGST drives the best, and I would look at 3TB or
> 4TB drives in Raid1 (if you don't need much space) or Raid6 if you need a
> ton of space.  I don't consider Raid5 as viable any more due to issues with
> drive failure during rebuild, etc.
>
> For CPUs, I really base this more on memory.  With large amounts of
> memory, I really prefer to have ECC memory.  AMD supports ECC on the FX
> line (as long as the MB supports it).  Intel will only let you do ECC on
> Xeon processors (workstation/server grade).  So will 8 3GHz+ modern cores
> be enough for what your doing?
>
> -Harry
>
>
>
>
> On 4/15/15, 2:21 PM, John Gruenenfelder wrote:
>
> Hey TFUG,
>
> I sent this two weeks ago and didn't get any response.  I wasn't sure if
> maybe nobody knew, if it was tl;dr, or the list was having issues.  So, I'm
> resending it just in case.  Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> --John Gruenenfelder    Systems Manager, MKS Imaging Technology, LLC.
> Try Weasel Reader for PalmOS  --  http://weaselreader.org
> "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood
> of my enemies!"
>         --Sam of Sam & Max
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "John Gruenenfelder" <jetpackjohn at gmail.com>
> Date: Apr 2, 2015 4:45 AM
> Subject: Seeking general storage and CPU/mobo advice for updating my work
> machine
> To: "Tucson Free UNIX Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
> Cc:
>
> Hi TFUG,
>
> It is starting to look like I'll finally get to upgrade my work
> server/workstation machine.  To give you some idea of its age, it contains
> an
> Athlon 64 X2 4400+ CPU, and that chip is plugged into one of those lovely
> early 64bit motherboards that would accept 4 GB of RAM but only allow
> access
> to 3.5 GB.
>
> As for the machine's purpose, it's mostly general purpose.  It is used by a
> fairly small number of users, primarily myself and my boss followed by a
> few
> who use it much less often.  As time has progressed and the machine has
> "become" slower, it sees less data processing and more data storing.  We
> run
> MATLAB and IDL on it occasionally, some data visualization (this is all
> astronomy stuff, BTW), and when I'm actually in the office it's the
> machine I
> do all of my dev work on.
>
> The machine, in name, has existed now for, oh, maybe 16 or 17 years?  After
> switching to Debian many years ago, the "upgrade" path has always been to
> build the replacement and then copy over the contents of the old drives,
> OS,
> data, and all.  Linux is so nice in that way where it can boot up on
> sometimes
> radically different hardware after the transfer and chances are there will
> be
> only minor issues, if any.  This new computer will be, if I'm counting
> right,
> the 5th incarnation.
>
>
> Anyway, it's time to reinvent the machine once more.  I can handle most of
> the
> requirements and whatnot myself, but I would very much appreciate the
> group's
> advice on a couple of topics:
>
>
> 1) Storage
>
> Disk space is cheap and we have a lot of data so the new machine was always
> going to have a lot of storage.  The present incarnation has roughly 900 GB
> altogether, split among several logical volumes.  Actually, it has twice
> that,
> but the volumes sit atop a (Linux kernel) RAID-1 array.
>
> The problem: once you go SSD, you don't want to go back.  I was painfully
> reminded of this today when a) I began a long overdue system update, b) the
> bi-hourly snapshot system triggered, and c) my boss came in and wanted to
> recreate for me an error he is having with a large program that uses a
> large
> data file.  Boy did that take forever...
>
> Obviously, using SSDs for all data would be insanely expensive, and given
> the
> numerous years that will undoubtedly pass before another machine rebuild,
> longevity is a concern.  I was thinking about the feasibility of using a
> SSD
> for the OS and possibly /home (on this system, I keep /home relatively
> small
> to "encourage" users to think about where they dump their bulk data).  It
> would be trivial to move /var/log onto one of the giant magnetic drives,
> and
> /tmp could be handled similarly or be mounted as a tmpfs.
>
> On the other hand, this machine will be on 24/7 and will have *way* more
> than
> the 3.5 GB of RAM the current machine does.  This means that the disk cache
> will be very large and, given the expected workload, should remain in
> memory
> for long periods of time.  After a short time, this should give most users
> SSD-like I/O performance when running programs from /usr and using data
> residing in /usr and /home.
>
> Which way would you go and why?
>
> Oh, and a related sub-topic... currently, the configuration is
> root-on-LVM-on-RAID1 which has been working quite nicely for a number of
> years.  Should I stick with RAID1 or move up the ladder?  At home on my
> personal server I have root-on-LVM-on-LUKS_crypto-on-RAID5.  When I finally
> get the money and wherewithal to upgrade my home server I'll switch it to
> RAID6.  With ever larger drives and the desire to not lose 50% of the total
> space to RAID1, should I move up to RAID6?  Provided, of course, that the
> final configuration has a sufficient number of drives for the desired RAID
> level.
>
>
> 2) Processor & motherboard
>
> The only real requirement that has been passed down to me, other than a
> rough
> upper limit on funds, is that the new machine should have strong parallel
> processing capabilities.  Multiple cores is a given, but there's also the
> possibility of multiple multi-core CPUs.  This parallel processing will be
> used for useful data processing, of course, but the primary use will be
> developing that code and running smaller jobs.  Larger jobs with more data
> would be moved off to larger clusters.
>
> It has been some time since I last had to do this.  Personal computers, on
> my
> own tight budget, yes, but now I have been given a high enough cap that I
> can
> look at more options.
>
> And great googley moogley!  Just a cursory glance on Newegg was enough for
> a
> good scare.  From $200 to $1000 there are CPUs of every conceivable
> combination of speed, number of cores, core name, and socket type.  I'm
> definitely in over my head here, it seems.
>
> Multiple physical CPUs would appear to require a "server" motherboard and a
> Xeon CPU.  There is only one 8-core desktop-class CPU, so going that route
> would mean either a 4- or 6-core CPU.  Server-class CPUs have a much larger
> spread and 4 to 8 cores seems feasible.  I did notice also that the
> server-class Xeon chips tend to have significantly lower wattage than
> similar
> desktop-class CPUs.
>
> At the same time, however, I can't simply pick a maximum price point, let's
> say $800, and pick the best available CPU.  At any given price you can
> adjust
> the sliders for frequency, number of cores, etc. and still have several
> choices for "best".
>
> With the rather vague usage scenario I've given above, how would you
> proceed?
> Fancy and fast six-core "desktop" CPU, or a fancier Xeon (maybe two?)
> eight-core CPU?  And then there's the offerings from AMD, though that
> seems to
> be rather less to sort through... and then the choice of motherboard...
> Ugh...
>
> Any available chip will be able to handle the "usual" tasks we're likely to
> throw at it: regular desktop applications/usage, sharing data among remote
> users, the small amount of web and mail traffic, etc.  Are Intel and AMD
> once
> again at parity with regards to running mathematical jobs?  I remember a
> few
> years back that AMD's highly anticipated Bulldozer core was being routinely
> crushed by Intel's then-available cores in raw integer and floating point
> math
> tasks.  Is one markedly better than the other these days?
>
> Are there any current CPU models that the community at large are flocking
> towards?  A model considered a good buy or particularly reliable, that
> sort of
> thing?
>
> Oh, and though it would seem like an entirely logical direction to move
> in, we
> are not currently doing any general purpose GPU type work.  I want to keep
> that avenue open, but whatever I put together now doesn't need to
> accomodate,
> for example, four giant power hungry video cards.  Just adding that in
> case it
> helps narrow the list at all.
>
>
> So many more variables to juggle.  Brain, ceasing to function...  Having
> seen
> that the landscape is far more vast than I was expecting, I would greatly
> appreciate any advice.
>
>
> --
> --John Gruenenfelder    Systems Manager, MKS Imaging Technology, LLC.
> My various (fun) projects  --  https://bach.as.arizona.edu/~johng
> "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood
> of my enemies!"
>         --Sam of Sam & Max
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20150624/55e800cb/attachment-0001.html>