[SamirDarji]

Originally Posted by pkuczaj

I've actually though about the web server and database (MySQL) running on two boxes. But if I'm going to go with a new box, why not go with a dual processor box, and run everything local as it is now? I didn't know that about the upgraded Nic (offloading the cpu), I'll go research a good Nic now, and pick one up for the upgrade that I've go scheduled. I'm upgrading the HD from a 100G IDE to a 146G SCSI Ultra 320 with a caching controller and increasing the UPS time because of the controller.

The dual processors won't do as much as you think. I was running vb at work as a knowledgebase on a dual xeon and I'd watch as only one cpu would be used at a time. It was really retarded. A friend of mine did some masters research in this area and discovered that the best case improvement that dual processors can make is 50%. I initially liked the idea of dual processors when they first came to the desktop, but after doing the research, it's usually not worth it. Besides, if you're already to the limit on your current box, I don't know if a mere 50%-75% improvement could sustain you for too long. And considering the investment, it's probably not too good bang for buck if it only buys a short time before the next upgrade.

3Com and Intel make some good server nics that are specifically designed to be very low on cpu utilization. The HD upgrade from the 100g IDE to the 146g SCSI will be tremendous as far as data transfer is concerned, although I'd hesitate on the caching controller. Back in the day I did some study on caching vs non-caching and the software caches at the time showed that it was possible to achieve the same performance as a caching controller with just a regular controller and a software cache.

Umm....what was this thread originally talking about? I forgot