Professional Web Applications Themes

Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help - SCO

We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram). using cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor and more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more sales. Some ideas on what ...

  1. #1

    Default Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help


    We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco
    5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram). using
    cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as
    maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor and
    more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have
    no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.

    As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    capable.

    Your server has only 1 processor.

    Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the case
    on your system you would not be able to login.

    Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.

    The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75 users
    logged in run like?

    The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when the
    SMP license is installed.

    The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands gets
    processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared and
    this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .

    A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz

    It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may become
    processor bound very quickly.

    Estimated Pricing:

    SCO Unix SMP License
    $2,900

    Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    $1,000

    Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    $ 2,400

    Plus travel and accommodation

    Estimated pricing does not include GST.



    As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    installation you may find that there has been no improvement in performance
    ..

    Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed as
    soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology enhancements
    of the past 5 years.




    Lee and Nadine Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help


    "Lee and Nadine" <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Ic5Ra.81020$JA5.1643994news.xtra.co.nz...
    >
    > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix
    sco
    > 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram).
    using
    > cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg"
    as
    > maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor
    and
    > more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I
    have
    > no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    > capable.
    >
    > Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    > Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the
    case
    > on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    > Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75
    users
    > logged in run like?
    >
    > The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when
    the
    > SMP license is installed.
    >
    > The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands
    gets
    > processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared
    and
    > this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    > processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    > It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may
    become
    > processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > SCO Unix SMP License
    > $2,900
    >
    > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > $1,000
    >
    > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > $ 2,400
    >
    > Plus travel and accommodation
    >
    > Estimated pricing does not include GST.
    >
    >
    >
    > As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    > advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    > installation you may find that there has been no improvement in
    performance
    > .
    >
    > Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed
    as
    > soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology
    enhancements
    > of the past 5 years.

    If you are looking at getting a new server soon anyway, why spend $6k now?
    (Go NZ dollars! Even worse than AU! :P)

    As for the rest. As you've not said what you're doing, it's hard to say.

    The output of things like 'sar -r' would be nice, also what does 'sar -d'
    report. You might need to enable sar first, and leave it running for a day
    before it gives you any reasonable results (/usr/lib/sa/sar_enable -y, if
    it isn't already eanbled).

    If it's processor bound, using 'mpstat' (if you've got SMP software
    installed already atleast) will show you as it's happening.

    Just one or two things to get you started. I'm sure the other guy's will
    go into more detail later.

    bkx


    Stuart J. Browne Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help


    "Lee and Nadine" <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:Ic5Ra.81020$JA5.1643994news.xtra.co.nz...
    >
    > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco
    > 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram).
    using
    > cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg"
    as
    > maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor
    and
    > more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I
    have
    > no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    > capable.
    >
    > Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    > Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the
    case
    > on your system you would not be able to login.
    Not true, but when the system starts swapping overall performance drops
    dramatically.
    >
    > Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75
    users
    > logged in run like?
    Having recently upgraded a dual Pentium II Overdrive Processor (333MHz) last
    year
    that had only 20 active users max at any given time, I can't imagine your
    performance
    with only a single processor and 75 users, unless 70 of them are doing only
    data entry/inquiry.
    >
    > The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when
    the
    > SMP license is installed.
    >
    > The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands gets
    > processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared
    and
    > this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    > processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    No single task by itself will run faster, but overall system performance
    will appear
    to be faster.
    >
    > It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may become
    > processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Estimated Pricing:
    I'm glad Stuart mentioned the NZ$, otherwise I was going to comment on the
    somewhat extravagant pricing.
    >
    > SCO Unix SMP License
    > $2,900
    >
    > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > $1,000
    You may also need an additional VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) if a 2nd
    one is not already present. Very hard to find for obsolete motherboards.
    >
    > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > $ 2,400
    Unless your original installer had the foresight to install the SMP module
    (without
    a license) during the original installation, this figure of 2 days is almost
    reasonable.
    In order to install SMP on a fully patched 5.0.5 system, you have to remove,
    in
    the proper order, over 2 dozen patches in addition to the rs505a supplement,
    and
    then reinstall all of them after installing SMP.

    If SMP is already there, you just have to
    >
    > Plus travel and accommodation
    >
    > Estimated pricing does not include GST.
    >
    >
    >
    > As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    > advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    > installation you may find that there has been no improvement in
    performance
    > .
    >
    > Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed as
    > soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology
    enhancements
    > of the past 5 years.
    We upgraded to a dual Pentium III 1.4GHz system with 512MB, due to the
    excessive
    cost of Pentium 4 Xeon systems at the time. Yesterday, Intel announced a
    price drop
    for most Xeon processors, bringing some of them down to the price we paid
    for the
    PIII processors last year, so that would be the direction to go today.

    DDR memory is significantly faster than the PC66 you're using now, and newer
    servers
    may have 66MHz PCI bus slots for a faster Ultra 320 SCSI adapter and disks.

    I agree that the money, inflated as it is, would be better spent on a new
    server.
    Upgrade to 5.0.7 while you're at it.

    Bob


    Bob Bailin Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    Lee and Nadine wrote:
    > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco
    > 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram). using
    > cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as
    > maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor and
    > more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have
    > no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    I just upgraded a client from a Dual P2-400Mhz, with OSR5.0.5 SMP to a
    single P4-2.5Ghz running OSR5.0.7. Oh, and SCSI drives from 10Krpms to
    15Krpm drives (big difference writing huge files and restoring backups
    from a DDS4 drive too). Processing that used to take 20 minutes now
    only takes a few seconds.
    > Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > SCO Unix SMP License
    > $2,900
    Ouch! Which currency?
    > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > $1,000
    $150USD maybe, pretty hard to find though. I have two SMP P2/400s. At
    that age, I would look at replacing the entire server unless down time
    means nothing to you. Generally, expect things to begin slowing and
    breaking down at three years, by five years, expect regular strange
    behaviour and frequent down time, and very hard to find replacement
    parts. In my experience anyway, OTOH: I've seen 10 year old machines
    just chugging away happily in their little corner.
    > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > $ 2,400
    2 days if you sit around watching the tape drive spin. Maybe 8 hours
    total hands-on time, including recovering users and any software and
    databases etc. Maybe a couple hours support calls to fix/recover
    unothodox things that may be floating around.

    Yeah, being from out-of-town makes a difference, so two days may be in
    order. Also depends where you are at.

    Maybe you would like to describe your system and cirstances in a bit
    more detail so the more, worldy, experts can asses it a bit closer.

    Perhaps the output of 'uname -X' too.

    :)

    Skot.

    Skot Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    "Lee and Nadine" <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote in message news:<Ic5Ra.81020$JA5.1643994news.xtra.co.nz>...
    > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco
    > 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram). using
    > cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as
    > maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor and
    > more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have
    > no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    > capable.
    >
    > Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    > Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the case
    > on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    > Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75 users
    > logged in run like?
    >
    > The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when the
    > SMP license is installed.
    >
    > The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands gets
    > processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared and
    > this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    > processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    > It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may become
    > processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > SCO Unix SMP License
    > $2,900
    >
    > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > $1,000
    >
    > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > $ 2,400
    >
    > Plus travel and accommodation
    >
    > Estimated pricing does not include GST.
    >
    >
    >
    > As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    > advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    > installation you may find that there has been no improvement in performance
    > .
    >
    > Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed as
    > soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology enhancements
    > of the past 5 years.
    I would definitely upgrade hardware and OS to the latest, it will cost
    you more then $6K but it will be a good investment for the future, you
    can spend 6k now but I can almost bet you that it will not speed up as
    much as you desire and will not be worth the money you will spend and
    again you will stuck with 5 years old hardware/OS.

    Abid
    Abid Khan Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    In article <Ic5Ra.81020$JA5.1643994news.xtra.co.nz>,
    Lee and Nadine <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote:
    >We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our
    >older unix sco 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times
    >(333mhz with 196 meg ram). using cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec
    >avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as maxxed out when
    >things run slow.
    Put 'maxed out' into real numbers.
    >One idea was to buy another processor and more ram, however this
    >is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have no idea if
    >what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    >sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    >capable.
    >Your server has only 1 processor.
    >Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this
    >was the case on your system you would not be able to login.
    That's not true. You can still log in on a system that is swapping
    - but the login may be slow. Only when you get to the point of
    massive thrashing do you lose any ability to log in.
    >Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    Did he check the system when it was running the slowest?
    >The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC
    >with 75 users logged in run like?
    Well I've had systems like that with 120 users logged in - but it
    was only 300MHz - and it ran pretty well. It had a fast disk
    system.

    One thing I don't see mentioned is disk performance.

    Output of sar with about 10 results from about 15 second intervals
    when the system is slow would surely help. Don't run intervals
    less than 10 seconds or sar itself will likely impact the results.
    >The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi
    >Processing when the SMP license is installed.
    But your programs nay not.
    >The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as
    >it stands gets processor bound and slows down , with dual
    >processors the load is shared and this processor bound state
    >takes a little longer to occur .
    >A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at
    >current processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >It should be noted that even with a second processor the system
    >may become processor bound very quickly.
    Was anything done to determine if the machine was processor bound.
    That was not stated.
    >Estimated Pricing:
    >SCO Unix SMP License
    >$2,900
    >Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    >$1,000
    >Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    >$ 2,400
    >Plus travel and accommodation
    It's been quite typical that upgrades to older systems don't bring
    the perfomance of a newer system.
    >As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small
    >possible advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost
    >benefit. Even after installation you may find that there has
    >been no improvement in performance .
    >Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server
    >installed as soon as possible so users can benefit from superior
    >technology enhancements of the past 5 years.
    You need to do some more testing to find out exactly where the
    problem lies. You didn't mention the program you used - some
    database designs should be taken out and destroyed.

    Your question is sort of like asking 'how big a truck do I need to
    move from xx to yy?' - without saying what you have to move.



    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:18:03 +1200, Lee and Nadine wrote:

    > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix
    > sco 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg
    > ram). using cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and
    > the "20 sec avg" as maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to
    > buy another processor and more ram, however this is what one supplier
    > has told us - see below. I have no idea if what he is saying is correct
    > of if hes trying to drum up more sales. Some ideas on what he wrote
    > would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    > capable.
    >
    > Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    > Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the
    > case on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    > Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75
    > users logged in run like?
    >
    > The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when
    > the SMP license is installed.
    >
    > The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands
    > gets processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is
    > shared and this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    > processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    > It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may
    > become processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > SCO Unix SMP License
    > $2,900
    >
    > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability] $1,000
    >
    > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ] $ 2,400
    >
    > Plus travel and accommodation
    >
    > Estimated pricing does not include GST.
    Holy cripes!!!

    a 333mhz anything, even a xeon, sould be at _most_ about $75(US)

    installation including changing the bios settings and installing the smp
    license and even including the possible backing-out of several sco patches
    and suppliments so that they can be re-added after smp is in, should only
    be a couple hours. 4 maybe if you run into some unforseen problem that
    takes a whoile to figure out or simply abandon the attempt and revert. add
    a coupel more if you want to be extra safe and do a full backup first, but
    since you should have one of those every night anyways, I wouldn't even
    bother. it's not an especially risky operation. (although, anyone who says
    it takes two days may not be of the competence level where they know how
    to make a copy of the current good kernel and if necessary boot from it
    later, so for them, if the box doesn't boot after installing smp and the
    only way they know to fix it is something collosally overkill like
    restoring the whole drive from a tape... yeah for them it might take two
    days.) add another hour for standing around testing and listening/watching
    for problems after you go back to work. I'd porbably stand around about 15
    minutes myself. most problems will either show up immediately, or else
    there is no predicting and no sense waiting.

    I have no idea what an smp license costs but that you can find on-line
    many places, because lost of people sell it and it doesn't matter who you
    get it from. the only value a vendor could add to make his price worth
    more is if he is knowledgeable he can assure that you buy the right
    license and nothing you don't need. It is confusing in some cases and so
    this service is actually valuable in some cases. Yours is not a complex
    licensing problem though.

    your cpu is old enough that you should actually be able to get two
    matching faster cpus for $200(US) or so all together. This would require
    knowing the exact motherboard model and revision, and bios version, and
    probably installing a bios update from the motherboard manufacturer to
    support faster cpu's than it originally could. I've done it plenty of
    times and all that would be part of the same couple hours I said above.

    you have other speed limits on a box that old, probably the scsi card is
    not a high-end raid card nor ultra160 discs. probably the ram is 66 mhz
    sdram

    The second cpu will probably help ...somewhat. probably not what you'd
    call "a lot". No particular job will go any faster, but, the box as a
    whole can support almost twice as many jobs at any one time as it could
    before. There is some overhead managing two cpu's though, so sometimes
    it's really more like 1.5 to 1.8 times as many jobs instead of the
    theoretical 2.0 times as many jobs.
    This will make everything faster, just by making them _possible_ at times
    when some big job would have normally tied up your only cpu. All in all
    I'd say it was worth doing, being cheaper faster and easier than getting a
    new server, but not at the quoted prices. at those prices you might as
    well get a new server because even though that would definitely be a lot
    more, at least you know about how much faster it will be. Beware you would
    need to upgrade your version of OS to at least 5.0.6 in order to use any
    P4 based cpu.

    The ram/swapping/not-swapping argument is not quite true either. If
    nothing else, you can probably get a noticeable boost by adding more ram
    even if all you do with it is max out the disk buffer cache size kernel
    parameters. (giving yourself 450 megs of disk cache). going too far in
    this direction can hurt performance too, because every few seconds the OS
    flushes the cache, and it takes a lot longer to flush 450 megs than say,
    20. there are other tunable parameters that control how often and at what
    threshold the cache is flushed which might make the extremely large cache
    work out, but it depends on your actual usage pattern which I cannot
    guess. that requires some live testing and observation. (_THAT_ can easily
    take two days, or two weeks or two months... but somehow I don't get the
    impression their quote figured in anything like that.) enabling sar is a
    good start. installing sarcheck is another.

    to summarize:
    You'll get more of a boost with new cpu, new motherboard and new ram (ddr
    or rdram at high bus rates, not sdram), which will also require an OS
    upgrade.Even if single-cpu, just because the cpu and memory are so much
    faster.

    You'll get a good noticeable hike by adding a second cpu to existing
    system, especially if the motherboard can take faster cpu's and you
    replace both rather than add one. (the same applies to the ram, maybe the
    motherboard can be made to use pc100 or even pc133 sdram instead of 66? It
    *should* be a lot faster easier and cheaper to do this than set up a new
    server, but the quotes you received are not good enough to make it worth
    doing in my opinion. Perhaps another consultant in your area?


    there are other issues that make a huge difference that might be worth
    looking at too. what kind of hard drive do you have now? Replacing a 20 or
    40 mhz scsi drive & controller with a 10k or 15k ultra160 drive and
    ultra160 controller makes a big difference. stepping up to raid
    even more so, but then it gets expensive. :) It's a time consuming job
    swapping hard drives and controllers. coupled with the cost of the
    hardware itself, it's probably too much to be worth doing because the
    amount of improvement is not as sure.

    > As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    > advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    > installation you may find that there has been no improvement in
    > performance .
    >
    > Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed
    > as soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology
    > enhancements of the past 5 years.

    --
    Brian K. White -- [email]brianaljex.com[/email] -- [url]http://www.aljex.com/bkw/[/url]
    +++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
    filePro BBx Linux SCO Prosper/FACTS AutoCAD #callahans Satriani

    Brian K. White Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    Thanks a lot for the comments Bill, has brought a few things to light.

    Appreciated.

    Lee


    "Bill Vermillion" <bvwjv.comREMOVE> wrote in message
    news:HI5C7B.5FAwjv.com...
    > In article <Ic5Ra.81020$JA5.1643994news.xtra.co.nz>,
    > Lee and Nadine <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote:
    >
    > >We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our
    > >older unix sco 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times
    > >(333mhz with 196 meg ram). using cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec
    > >avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as maxxed out when
    > >things run slow.
    >
    > Put 'maxed out' into real numbers.
    >
    > >One idea was to buy another processor and more ram, however this
    > >is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have no idea if
    > >what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > >sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > >As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    > >capable.
    >
    > >Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    > >Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this
    > >was the case on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    > That's not true. You can still log in on a system that is swapping
    > - but the login may be slow. Only when you get to the point of
    > massive thrashing do you lose any ability to log in.
    >
    > >Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > Did he check the system when it was running the slowest?
    >
    > >The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC
    > >with 75 users logged in run like?
    >
    > Well I've had systems like that with 120 users logged in - but it
    > was only 300MHz - and it ran pretty well. It had a fast disk
    > system.
    >
    > One thing I don't see mentioned is disk performance.
    >
    > Output of sar with about 10 results from about 15 second intervals
    > when the system is slow would surely help. Don't run intervals
    > less than 10 seconds or sar itself will likely impact the results.
    >
    > >The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi
    > >Processing when the SMP license is installed.
    >
    > But your programs nay not.
    >
    > >The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as
    > >it stands gets processor bound and slows down , with dual
    > >processors the load is shared and this processor bound state
    > >takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > >A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at
    > >current processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    > >It should be noted that even with a second processor the system
    > >may become processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Was anything done to determine if the machine was processor bound.
    > That was not stated.
    >
    > >Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > >SCO Unix SMP License
    > >$2,900
    >
    > >Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > >$1,000
    >
    > >Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > >$ 2,400
    >
    > >Plus travel and accommodation
    >
    > It's been quite typical that upgrades to older systems don't bring
    > the perfomance of a newer system.
    >
    > >As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small
    > >possible advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost
    > >benefit. Even after installation you may find that there has
    > >been no improvement in performance .
    >
    > >Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server
    > >installed as soon as possible so users can benefit from superior
    > >technology enhancements of the past 5 years.
    >
    > You need to do some more testing to find out exactly where the
    > problem lies. You didn't mention the program you used - some
    > database designs should be taken out and destroyed.
    >
    > Your question is sort of like asking 'how big a truck do I need to
    > move from xx to yy?' - without saying what you have to move.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com

    Lee and Nadine Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    Interesting comments, thanks for that Skot.

    You have given me enough info to come to a few conclusions.

    Thanks for your time

    Lee


    "Skot" <skotcanada.com> wrote in message
    news:_DiRa.385$46.106497news2.telusplanet.net...
    > Lee and Nadine wrote:
    >
    > > We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix
    sco
    > > 5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram).
    using
    > > cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec
    avg" as
    > > maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor
    and
    > > more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I
    have
    > > no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > > sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > I just upgraded a client from a Dual P2-400Mhz, with OSR5.0.5 SMP to a
    > single P4-2.5Ghz running OSR5.0.7. Oh, and SCSI drives from 10Krpms to
    > 15Krpm drives (big difference writing huge files and restoring backups
    > from a DDS4 drive too). Processing that used to take 20 minutes now
    > only takes a few seconds.
    >
    > > Estimated Pricing:
    > >
    > > SCO Unix SMP License
    > > $2,900
    >
    > Ouch! Which currency?
    >
    > > Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > > $1,000
    >
    > $150USD maybe, pretty hard to find though. I have two SMP P2/400s. At
    > that age, I would look at replacing the entire server unless down time
    > means nothing to you. Generally, expect things to begin slowing and
    > breaking down at three years, by five years, expect regular strange
    > behaviour and frequent down time, and very hard to find replacement
    > parts. In my experience anyway, OTOH: I've seen 10 year old machines
    > just chugging away happily in their little corner.
    >
    > > Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > > $ 2,400
    >
    > 2 days if you sit around watching the tape drive spin. Maybe 8 hours
    > total hands-on time, including recovering users and any software and
    > databases etc. Maybe a couple hours support calls to fix/recover
    > unothodox things that may be floating around.
    >
    > Yeah, being from out-of-town makes a difference, so two days may be in
    > order. Also depends where you are at.
    >
    > Maybe you would like to describe your system and cirstances in a bit
    > more detail so the more, worldy, experts can asses it a bit closer.
    >
    > Perhaps the output of 'uname -X' too.
    >
    > :)
    >
    > Skot.
    >

    Lee and Nadine Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:18:03 +1200, "Lee and Nadine"
    <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote:
    >We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix sco
    >5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram). using
    >cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg" as
    >maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor and
    >more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I have
    >no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    >sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    >As quickly discussed on the phone today the server is dual processor
    >capable.
    >
    >Your server has only 1 processor.
    >
    >Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the case
    >on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    >Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    >The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75 users
    >logged in run like?
    >
    >The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when the
    >SMP license is installed.
    >
    >The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands gets
    >processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared and
    >this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    >A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    >processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    >It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may become
    >processor bound very quickly.
    >
    >Estimated Pricing:
    >
    >SCO Unix SMP License
    >$2,900
    >
    >Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    >$1,000
    Jeez. I just had a system built for my current project, and the
    _total_ box cost me $1400. It's an Athlon XP 1.533 GHz with 512 Mb DDR
    ECC RAM and a 120 Gbyte hard drive. I got it from Xi Computer
    ([url]http://www.xicomputer.com[/url]). It came with RH 9 installed. I got the
    box with the cheapest Nvidia card, since OSR 5.0.7 doesn't seem to
    support that many video cards. I also had them put in an Inter
    EtherExpress PRO, since SCO is particular about the NIC's as well.

    brian

    [url]http://www.xicomputer.com[/url]
    Brian Lavender Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Would a 2nd processor really be a waste of time???? help

    Thank you very much Tony.

    Lee


    <tonyaplawrence.com> wrote in message news:bf9qbk$4j5$1pcls4.std.com...
    > Lee and Nadine <lee.nadinextra.co.nz> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >We are looking at different aspects on what to do about our older unix
    sco
    > >5.5 server that tends to run slow at times (333mhz with 196 meg ram).
    using
    > >cpqmon it shows the CPU "2 sec avg" the "10 sec avg" and the "20 sec avg"
    as
    > >maxxed out when things run slow. One idea was to buy another processor
    and
    > >more ram, however this is what one supplier has told us - see below. I
    have
    > >no idea if what he is saying is correct of if hes trying to drum up more
    > >sales. Some ideas on what he wrote would be greatly appreciated.
    >
    > Well, it doesn't sound to me like he's trying to drum up more sales
    > necessarily.
    >
    > I'd disagree with some of what he said:
    >
    >
    > >Memory is not an issue unless the system is swapping , if this was the
    case
    > >on your system you would not be able to login.
    >
    > Not true. Logging in (and everything else) might be painfully slow,
    > but not impossible. It's easy enough to find out if you are having
    > memory issues: see [url]http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/memory.html[/url] and
    > [url]http://aplawrence.com/Boot/swap.html[/url]
    >
    > >Your system is not swapping and so is not the cause of the slow system.
    >
    > So what is the cause? Maybe he already knows, but if not, it's time
    > to look at sar, [url]http://osr5doc.ca.caldera.com:457/PERFORM/CONTENTS.html[/url]
    > and [url]http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/slow.html[/url]
    >
    > >The server is only 333 MHz, what would a 5 year old 333 MHz PC with 75
    users
    > >logged in run like?
    >
    > Pretty slowly, though I xan remember running 20 users on a machine 1/10th
    > as fast. The CPU speed just isn't necessarily the issue; in fact
    > you are much more likely to be disk and i/o bound than cpu bound.
    > That's "likely", though: sar will show you what's really going on.
    >
    > >The Unix system takes full advantage of Symmetric Multi Processing when
    the
    > >SMP license is installed.
    >
    > Right.
    >
    > >The only advantage of this would be seen when the system as it stands
    gets
    > >processor bound and slows down , with dual processors the load is shared
    and
    > >this processor bound state takes a little longer to occur .
    >
    > >A second processor does not speed up a server but shares load at current
    > >processor speed. i.e. 333Mhz
    >
    > Well, yeah, but that doesn't tell the true story. If you are slow because
    > the cpu can't keep up with the workload, activating a second cpu will
    > make you faster. Ther's a great big IF in there; again you need to
    > know why you are slow now.
    >
    > >It should be noted that even with a second processor the system may
    become
    > >processor bound very quickly.
    >
    > Sure. And with a $70,000 super-charged, fire breathing everything to the
    max
    > super machine, 75 users doing the right (or wrong) things could make it
    > run like an old Tandy Model 16 with 15 users. So?
    >
    > >Estimated Pricing:
    >
    > >SCO Unix SMP License
    > >$2,900
    >
    > If that's some currency that's worth about a third of U.S. dollars that's
    > about right.
    >
    > >Second 333 MHz Processor [ subject to availability]
    > >$1,000
    >
    > And that's a good point about availability.
    >
    > >Installation approximately 2 days labour [ out of hours rate ]
    > >$ 2,400
    >
    > Two days ??????
    >
    > Doing what?
    >
    >
    > >As discussed this is not a very good idea due to the small possible
    > >advantage it may bring during peek usage and cost benefit. Even after
    > >installation you may find that there has been no improvement in
    performance
    > >.
    >
    > >Again as mentioned on the phone we need to get the new server installed
    as
    > >soon as possible so users can benefit from superior technology
    enhancements
    > >of the past 5 years.
    >
    > I'd agree with that with this caveat: very often people over-buy in
    > the hope that the super-duper machine they have paid some outrageous sum
    > for will last for many years. It won't. The Superman machine you buy
    > today is plain old clark Kent in two years and is the skinny wimp on the
    > beach in three. Unless you have a real need to be on the bleeding edge,
    > or have money to burn, don't do this. Consider this:
    >
    > A $1,000 machine today (U.S. Dollars) will outperform almost ANYTHING you
    > bought 5 years ago, even if you spent 20 times that. So don't make that
    > mistake again. Maybe you can beef it up a little, maybe a $2,000 or
    > $3,000 box, but almost nobody really needs anything more than that. If
    > you buy in the lower range, you can afford to have duplicate hardware
    > ready to employ, and you also won't feel bad about replacing it with
    > another inexpensive box two years from now.
    >
    > Many a time I have had smaller places try an off the shelf $700.00 Dell
    > to replace a $12,000 monster they bought 5 years back. They could
    > always use it as someones desktop if it didn't work out, but it almost
    > always does - oh, maybe we throw in some more RAM, or if the number
    > of users is up there I still prefer SCSI, but it is very, very rare
    > to have to speInd big money on hardware today. You are a bit larger,
    > and of course I don't know what apps your 75 users run, so you probably
    > couldn't get away at the very bottom, but neither is it likely you
    > need bleeding edge either.
    >
    > --
    > [email]tonyaplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
    > Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]
    >
    >

    Lee and Nadine Guest

Similar Threads

  1. DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
    By Quantum_Xq234 in forum Macromedia Contribute General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 1st, 11:26 AM
  2. CF Software subscriptions - a waste of time?
    By mee in forum Macromedia ColdFusion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 11th, 03:17 PM
  3. Chemicals-where to put the waste
    By Pedro Almeida in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 29th, 05:46 PM
  4. MIME::Lite - handy change or waste of time?
    By Matthew Braid in forum PERL Modules
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 15th, 06:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139