0

I'm upgrading to a dedicated server, and I've decided between two servers, but I don't know which to choose. The differences between the two configurations are:

Server 1: Intel Xeon W3520(4 cores/ 8 threads), 2.66 GHz+, 32 GB ECC RAM, 2 X 2TB SATA Server 2: Intel Xeon E3 1225v2(4 cores/ 4 threads), 3.2 GHz+, 32 GB Non-ECC RAM, 3 x 120 GB SSD

The server will be a LAMP, and probably Debian 7.

After searching I found that ECC RAM is definitely optimal for a server, especially for mine (I got 40,000 monthly hits on shared hosting), and doesn't really impact speed.

The first server also has 8 threads to Server 2's 4, but server 2 has 3.2 GHz+ and I get the all-important SSDs. The reduction in sze available is not important to me.

I couldn't find an answer online. Should I go for server 1 because of its ECC RAM and double the # of threads, or should I go for the SSDs, and higher CPU frequency?

ashraj98
  • 163
  • 2
  • 8
  • 3
    Because there isn't one better answer, it's a choice. How can we know what's more appropriate for you? What is the site - how important is the data, how much is it CPU heavy? How much disk IO will it have? Are they consumer or server class SSDs? How important is the data? What's your backup strategy? – TessellatingHeckler May 31 '15 at 13:45
  • 2
    Don't skimp on anything. Right-size for your application and needs. – ewwhite May 31 '15 at 15:41
  • Is it mission critical, or are you serving prawn? – Konrad Gajewski May 31 '15 at 15:43
  • It is critical because my shared web host cut my MySQL requests because I had too many connections for my account. However, both of these configs should work well now, but for the future, I need to know. It's not very CPU heavy, but it is RAM heavy, and there isn't much disk I/O. The SSDs are server class, or so they say. All data is important, but it is automatically backed up. – ashraj98 May 31 '15 at 16:10
  • 3
    40,000 monthly hits is about one per **minute**. If you're hitting "too many connections" with that you've got a different problem. An *Apple Watch* should be able to serve that level of traffic, let alone the specs you've laid out. – ceejayoz May 31 '15 at 17:29
  • Based on your comments... I'd go with the ECC RAM setup. This isn't "skimping" on anything though - just appropriate sizing for your application needs and workload. – JimNim May 31 '15 at 17:29
  • 2
    `40,000 monthly hits` - That's not a very big number - in fact quite the opposite. Any server should be pretty much idling with that kind of traffic. – AD7six May 31 '15 at 17:30
  • @AD7six Yep. From my experience with shared hosts, they have a form reply for "your fault! ". I wouldn't trust their statement that the OP incurred too many connections. – ceejayoz May 31 '15 at 17:31

1 Answers1

-2

Go for ECC RAM.

Reasons

  • You need more RAM than disk IO, so you do not need SSDs

    • You want to see RAM errors, before it's too late

    • More Cores are propably more important than CPU speed in your use case

Nils
  • 7,657
  • 3
  • 31
  • 71
  • 1
    Sorry, -1. This reads as a blind guess and doesn't help the OP unless you're aware of the application in question. Also: this is _blatantly_ off topic, you should know better than to answer it. – AD7six May 31 '15 at 17:32
  • @AD7six After reading the comments I know enough. And ECC is a must have. – Nils May 31 '15 at 17:42
  • 1
    Prediction: a $5/mo or maybe $10/mo do droplet is sufficient for the OP's use case - because "it is RAM heavy" means nothing without some context, and the app worked on a shared host before (however badly/constrained). – AD7six May 31 '15 at 17:45
  • 1
    @AD7six Probably true. The canonical Q points it out pretty well. – Nils May 31 '15 at 18:27