| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: ECC/REG RAM |
 |
|
I need to get my hands on a couple of 1 Gig sticks of PC2700 ECC/REG.
On bb.co.kr and danawa.co.kr I have found:
512 stick of PC2700 ECC/REG
1 Gig stick of PC2700 ECC/LP
This is for an additional server we just added so it has to be exact (trying to save our ram slots).
Know where to find it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
muggie2dammit
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Location: Ilsan, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:51 am Post subject: Re: ECC/REG RAM |
|
|
| chiaa wrote: |
I need to get my hands on a couple of 1 Gig sticks of PC2700 ECC/REG.
This is for an additional server we just added so it has to be exact (trying to save our ram slots).
|
The Samsung 1GB ECC/REG modules are reliable. Not amazingly fast, but reliable, and work on almost any server board. Check it though, just to be certain it'll work on your board.
CHeck this link to see places that sell it: http://pc.danawa.com/price_new.html?pc=pc&cate1=861&cate2=874
Muggie2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huck
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
How many servers do you have chia ???
For the bookstore ?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dbee wrote: |
How many servers do you have chia ???
For the bookstore ?? |
We just added a second one.
They are for the bookstore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Amateur. I've got five at my store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you sell, servers?
a smiley shouldn't be neccessary here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBlackEquus
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is it really that much faster? What are your opinions? I've been thinking about doing this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| Amateur. I've got five at my store. |
Actually if you have them at your store then you are the amateur. Ours are at The Korea Internet Data Center in Bundang http://www.kt-idc.com/english/index.jsp.
Three back up lines, one satellite back up and three power back up systems. (That's why you would never have them at your store unless you are Microsoft or Google) And I know you were joking.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
| Is it really that much faster? What are your opinions? I've been thinking about doing this. |
My web guys had a choice, one powerful crazy one or two pretty good ones. They wanted the two pretty good ones. One acts as a database server and a back up and the other takes care of the rest internet guru crap.
Next we add another server and this split it up even further but the third one is for putting everything back together into one page.
It's also cheaper this way because if you get a motherboard with like four processors and four ram slots for each processor you are talking crazy money. For a database you want more ram and do not rely on the processors as much. So for the price of that one crazy mother board you can actually have say 8 servers for the same price and thus 3 times more ram (crazy server 16 slots, eight mid range servers 32 slots). It's all about the RAM.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Then 99.999...% of the data the servers provide would be slower to me and my primary customer base. One is a local data server for ISO image mounting for games on demand which would take several minutes to accomplish from Korea verses under 1 second locally in most cases. Two more are dedicated game servers (one Windows, one Linux) for people in the store and the local community (under 1ms in the store, and 30ms to most people in the community). A ping time to Korea would be 200ms or higher. And running an enterprise level firewall server would be outright silly to have in Asia when the network is not at the same site, though the web server portion of it may or may not be faster as I have a dedicated connection for it while servers at KT are running on shared 100Mb lines with no speed guarantee. And finally, the master database computer which handles both machine lockdowns and personal file transfers. Assuming 100MB of data each time a person logs in and tries to play Battlefield 2, downloading that from Korea would take considerable time verses the 3 seconds it takes now and that's simply because the hard drive can't go any faster.
Though my case is special. I suspect that for most people, the KT solution is far more practical.
| Quote: |
| Three back up lines, one satellite back up and three power back up systems. (That's why you would never have them at your store unless you are Microsoft or Google) And I know you were joking. |
Two back-up lines (second fibre, business DSL), and two power back-up systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
| Is it really that much faster? What are your opinions? I've been thinking about doing this. |
It's faster, but you would only ever see a speed increase if the server you are currently on is already strained. Running "what the book" on high-end hardware like that is pretty much unneeded. You could run the whole thing on a Celeron with a stack of cheap RAM and it wouldn't be any slower to the average consumer looking at the site.
Though server-grade hardware is generally much more reliable than consumer products, and comes with improved options in products like network cards (Intel 1Gb consumer cards are $35US, while server grade ones are $95US and include a stack of extra options. Their site lists all the extra bells and whistles).
I'm toying with the idea of using server-grade hardware as gaming machines because of the increase in memory throughput, and in one test so far it made a considerable framerate increase (about 10%) with the X1800 card that was also being tested. Using a slower card where the card was the bottleneck would have netted no speed increase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gord,
How goes it on the pc room adventure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
Then 99.999...% of the data the servers provide would be slower to me and my primary customer base. One is a local data server for ISO image mounting for games on demand which would take several minutes to accomplish from Korea verses under 1 second locally in most cases. Two more are dedicated game servers (one Windows, one Linux) for people in the store and the local community (under 1ms in the store, and 30ms to most people in the community). A ping time to Korea would be 200ms or higher. And running an enterprise level firewall server would be outright silly to have in Asia when the network is not at the same site, though the web server portion of it may or may not be faster as I have a dedicated connection for it while servers at KT are running on shared 100Mb lines with no speed guarantee. And finally, the master database computer which handles both machine lockdowns and personal file transfers. Assuming 100MB of data each time a person logs in and tries to play Battlefield 2, downloading that from Korea would take considerable time verses the 3 seconds it takes now and that's simply because the hard drive can't go any faster.
Though my case is special. I suspect that for most people, the KT solution is far more practical.
| Quote: |
| Three back up lines, one satellite back up and three power back up systems. (That's why you would never have them at your store unless you are Microsoft or Google) And I know you were joking. |
Two back-up lines (second fibre, business DSL), and two power back-up systems. |
Yep. Your case is special. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gord wrote: |
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
| Is it really that much faster? What are your opinions? I've been thinking about doing this. |
It's faster, but you would only ever see a speed increase if the server you are currently on is already strained. Running "what the book" on high-end hardware like that is pretty much unneeded. You could run the whole thing on a Celeron with a stack of cheap RAM and it wouldn't be any slower to the average consumer looking at the site.
Though server-grade hardware is generally much more reliable than consumer products, and comes with improved options in products like network cards (Intel 1Gb consumer cards are $35US, while server grade ones are $95US and include a stack of extra options. Their site lists all the extra bells and whistles).
I'm toying with the idea of using server-grade hardware as gaming machines because of the increase in memory throughput, and in one test so far it made a considerable framerate increase (about 10%) with the X1800 card that was also being tested. Using a slower card where the card was the bottleneck would have netted no speed increase. |
We were just running it on a Celeron with cheap RAM but it was no longer cutting the mustard. While it could easily handle the amount of traffic we are getting there are so many background things going on it was affecting site browsing. Traffic is expected to triple in April as well.
Gord what is this game room of yours? Sounds a bit more than just a PC room.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
