CPU for Single-Socket Fileserver LGA775

[idata]

hello,

at the moment i´m building a fileserver for approx. 5 users, so far the system looks like this:

Intel S3210SHLC

4x1GB DDR2 ECC Micron

what do you guys think would be an adequate CPU for this purpose? in the future i plan to run some VM´s on this machine.

thanks

[idata]

http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/S3200SH/sb/CS-028293.htm http://support.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/S3200SH/sb/CS-028293.htm

thats the list of processors for your board

[idata]

i´m aware of this list, but thanks

intel guys, what CPU would you recommend for this purpose?

for instance, the E2xxx CPUs don´t seem appropriate due to the lack of Intel VT, correct?

in terms of processing power, i would appreciate some leeway, so if there is a need for additional power, it´s already at hand.

thanks!

[idata]

Hi there,

To advise which CPU to get, i hope someone else can give you a precise answer.

But i do have some other information for you, hopefully it may help you a bit.

It is good to get an Intel Xeon 3300 Family like the X3360 (new core stepping E0)

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB8X http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB8Xhttp://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=33933 http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=33933

Note:

Make sure that you dont get the cpu E5200, as there is a known issue for that. Anyway, it does not support VT. :-)Website: http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/s3200sh/sb/s3210sh_s3200sh_monthly_spec_update_feb_09.pdf http://download.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/s3200sh/sb/s3210sh_s3200sh_monthly_spec_update_feb_09.pdfPage: 19

VMWARE ESXi 3.5 does not work, but i tried a previous version which worked last time.

I have tried VMWare Server and Workstation which worked fine.

Kind Regards,

Aryan.

[idata]

thanks aryan,

as the system will run 24/7 and i´m looking for a decent power consumption, i would favor a dualcore with VT over a quadcore.

edit:

due to my need of Intel VT and 1333FSB, i guess there is no other choice than a model from the E8xxx series?

E8400/E3110 (3,0Ghz / 6MB / 1333FSB) looks to me like the way to go

thoughts, comments?

[HERBERT_H_Intel]

seems like more than enough for a file server.

Just one thig to remember... don't try to run the virtual macines on the same RAID volume (or single HDD) as the file server will be sharing from. It will cut performance exponentially.

OJ

[idata]

sure thing about the VM´s - yep

other comments on the processor choice?

[HERBERT_H_Intel]

I have run a few virtual machines on processors which have lower specs than that. I used xeons t(in a single processor configuartion) hat were dual core and 1066 FSB with only 4GB cache (65nm processors) with VMware server and was running a couple of virtual machines happily. I think this processor will be more than enough to run a couple of virtual machines.

OJ

[idata]

appreciate your contributions

i assume that you mean 4MB Cache on your Xeon?

in all likelihood it would be wise to choose the most recent processor stepping, right?

[HERBERT_H_Intel]

i really need a 4GB cache processor .

I guess the stepping itself shouldn't matter much. i mean, they should have the same specs anyway.

OJ

[idata]

personally i just prefer to have the most recent stepping, i think i can sleep better then

it seems that the price of the E3110 dropped here significantly in the last days... i´m almost certain

[idata]

@ ojconcentrate

do you have experiences with truecrypt e.g. on your single-socket Xeon systems?

i´m planning to fully encrypt my data

also other contributions in terms of encrypting on the stated CPU are very welcome!

[HERBERT_H_Intel]

No. i havent tried truecrypt on a production enviroment but did have a chance to try it at home for my file server (sort of production enviroment).

I was amazed of how low the CPU utilization was using a single socket CPU. even on my laptop with a C2D T7100 (1.8ghz) it performed exceptionally well.

The only problem i found with truecrypt was that there didn't seems to be a way to automatically mount the volumes (file based volumed). i always had to go in manually and mount it and give the password. for this reason i chose to use Windows EFS which made the files available as soon as the user authenticated. the problem i found with EFS is that the encrypted files are only available by the user locally and cannot be shared on the network. it was annoying and now i only use to encrypt my documents which aren't shared.

but overall tryecrypt it was a good system. i especially liked the deniability system it uses. I had a play with the full drive encryption and it installs a new boot loader on the system. very interesting. If i was a paranoid enough (or had the need to use it) i would sure use it.

OJ

[idata]

good to hear that you didn´t notice a significantly increase in CPU utilization. i was expecting the opposite.

i definitively want to encrypt all my data (for safety and paranoia reasons) but i want to eliminate possible bottlenecks in performance.

it seems that the E3110 (3Ghz) is adequate if you ran encryption with just a 1.8Ghz CPU?

[HERBERT_H_Intel]

you're not even going to notice its encrypted.

When i converted my drive to a full encrypted drive, while the encryption was going at 100%, i think i only saw link 8-11% cpu utilization!

OJ

[idata]

but that load may depend on the actual algorithm, or? what encryption did you use?

i assume, an encryption like AES-Twofish-Serpent should generate a bit more CPU load and lower the transfer-rates noticeable?

according to some truecrypt benchmarks which seem to confirm this presumption

[idata]

does anybody know if there will be any new Xeons for the LGA775 Socket beside the exisiting ones?

[idata]

no informations about this around?

[idata]

anyone from intel?

[SAdco]

you might try posting this question in the Server Room community: /community/openportit/server http://communities.intel.com/community/openportit/server

[idata]

do you think in this section is more participation?

i experienced that there isn´t that much instead of the "Support Community"