>> Approx. 200 reqest a sec. should be a problem unless the queries are heavy.
>
> Thanks Claus thats good news!
> I'm having a reputable vendor build the box and test it for me before
> delivering. The bottom line of your message, did you mean 'should be not a
> problem'? I wonder what the main reason for your improvement, your ram was
> increased by a factor of 2, but 4 way opteron vs 4 way woodcrest performance
> must not be that significant.
Sorry, the line should read 'should *not* be a problem', pardon for
the confusion. So 200 queries/s should be fine, probably won't make
the server sweat.
I'm not shure what attributed most to the decrease when the load went
from approx. 100 during peak to less than 1! Since the db-server is
such a vital part of our infrastructure, I was reluctant to upgrade
it, while load was below 10. But in November and December - when we
have our most busy time - our website slowed to a crawl, thus phasing
a new server in was an easy decision.
The woodcrest is a better performer compared to the current opteron,
the ciss-disk-controller also has 256 MB cache compared to the 64 MB
LSI-logic controller in the former db-server, FreeBSD 6.2 is also a
better performer than 6.0, but I haven't done any benchmarking on the
same hardware.
regards
Claus
