[Tfug] Seeking general storage and CPU/mobo advice for updating my work machine

[John Hubbard]

It is worth pointing out that all of the processors you mention are
embedded (hence the E in the part number).  That means that you have to
find a system ready-built with those processors.  Do you have any insight
on where you might be able to find manufacturers shipping systems with
those chips?

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Louis Taber <ltaber at gmail.com> wrote:

> Two fifth generation Intel i7 processors support ECC memory:
>
> Intel® Core™ i7-5850EQ Processor
> (6M Cache, up to 3.40 GHz)
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/88094/Intel-Core-i7-5850EQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz
> $435
>
> and
>
> Intel® Core™ i7-5700EQ Processor
> (6M Cache, up to 3.40 GHz)
>
> http://ark.intel.com/products/88093/Intel-Core-i7-5700EQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz
> $378
>
> These 4th generation too:
>
> [snip]
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Harry McGregor <micros at osef.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Here is my advice (and yes, I am going to top-post instead of inline or
>> bottom post...).
>>
>> Storage, I would look at Raid10 (lvm on top, or luks and lvm) with SSD
>> for the primary system storage.
>>
>> 240-250GB SSDs can be had for under $70 for OK drives, and about $100 for
>> the higher end.  I would use two (or four) drives in raid10, and yes, I
>> mean raid10.  Linux raid10 will stripe the reads, and with the low latency
>> of SSDs, that works REALLY well.  SSD lifespan has been GREATLY overblown
>> as a big issue, field experience shows that it's not an issue.
>>
>> For bulk storage, I like HGST drives the best, and I would look at 3TB or
>> 4TB drives in Raid1 (if you don't need much space) or Raid6 if you need a
>> ton of space.  I don't consider Raid5 as viable any more due to issues with
>> drive failure during rebuild, etc.
>>
>> For CPUs, I really base this more on memory.  With large amounts of
>> memory, I really prefer to have ECC memory.  AMD supports ECC on the FX
>> line (as long as the MB supports it).  Intel will only let you do ECC on
>> Xeon processors (workstation/server grade).  So will 8 3GHz+ modern cores
>> be enough for what your doing?
>>
>> -Harry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/15, 2:21 PM, John Gruenenfelder wrote:
>>
>> Hey TFUG,
>>
>> I sent this two weeks ago and didn't get any response.  I wasn't sure if
>> maybe nobody knew, if it was tl;dr, or the list was having issues.  So, I'm
>> resending it just in case.  Thanks in advance.
>>
>> --
>> --John Gruenenfelder    Systems Manager, MKS Imaging Technology, LLC.
>> Try Weasel Reader for PalmOS  --  http://weaselreader.org
>> "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood
>> of my enemies!"
>>         --Sam of Sam & Max
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "John Gruenenfelder" <jetpackjohn at gmail.com>
>> Date: Apr 2, 2015 4:45 AM
>> Subject: Seeking general storage and CPU/mobo advice for updating my work
>> machine
>> To: "Tucson Free UNIX Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Hi TFUG,
>>
>> It is starting to look like I'll finally get to upgrade my work
>> server/workstation machine.  To give you some idea of its age, it
>> contains an
>> Athlon 64 X2 4400+ CPU, and that chip is plugged into one of those lovely
>> early 64bit motherboards that would accept 4 GB of RAM but only allow
>> access
>> to 3.5 GB.
>>
>> As for the machine's purpose, it's mostly general purpose.  It is used by
>> a
>> fairly small number of users, primarily myself and my boss followed by a
>> few
>> who use it much less often.  As time has progressed and the machine has
>> "become" slower, it sees less data processing and more data storing.  We
>> run
>> MATLAB and IDL on it occasionally, some data visualization (this is all
>> astronomy stuff, BTW), and when I'm actually in the office it's the
>> machine I
>> do all of my dev work on.
>>
>> The machine, in name, has existed now for, oh, maybe 16 or 17 years?
>> After
>> switching to Debian many years ago, the "upgrade" path has always been to
>> build the replacement and then copy over the contents of the old drives,
>> OS,
>> data, and all.  Linux is so nice in that way where it can boot up on
>> sometimes
>> radically different hardware after the transfer and chances are there
>> will be
>> only minor issues, if any.  This new computer will be, if I'm counting
>> right,
>> the 5th incarnation.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, it's time to reinvent the machine once more.  I can handle most
>> of the
>> requirements and whatnot myself, but I would very much appreciate the
>> group's
>> advice on a couple of topics:
>>
>>
>> 1) Storage
>>
>> Disk space is cheap and we have a lot of data so the new machine was
>> always
>> going to have a lot of storage.  The present incarnation has roughly 900
>> GB
>> altogether, split among several logical volumes.  Actually, it has twice
>> that,
>> but the volumes sit atop a (Linux kernel) RAID-1 array.
>>
>> The problem: once you go SSD, you don't want to go back.  I was painfully
>> reminded of this today when a) I began a long overdue system update, b)
>> the
>> bi-hourly snapshot system triggered, and c) my boss came in and wanted to
>> recreate for me an error he is having with a large program that uses a
>> large
>> data file.  Boy did that take forever...
>>
>> Obviously, using SSDs for all data would be insanely expensive, and given
>> the
>> numerous years that will undoubtedly pass before another machine rebuild,
>> longevity is a concern.  I was thinking about the feasibility of using a
>> SSD
>> for the OS and possibly /home (on this system, I keep /home relatively
>> small
>> to "encourage" users to think about where they dump their bulk data).  It
>> would be trivial to move /var/log onto one of the giant magnetic drives,
>> and
>> /tmp could be handled similarly or be mounted as a tmpfs.
>>
>> On the other hand, this machine will be on 24/7 and will have *way* more
>> than
>> the 3.5 GB of RAM the current machine does.  This means that the disk
>> cache
>> will be very large and, given the expected workload, should remain in
>> memory
>> for long periods of time.  After a short time, this should give most users
>> SSD-like I/O performance when running programs from /usr and using data
>> residing in /usr and /home.
>>
>> Which way would you go and why?
>>
>> Oh, and a related sub-topic... currently, the configuration is
>> root-on-LVM-on-RAID1 which has been working quite nicely for a number of
>> years.  Should I stick with RAID1 or move up the ladder?  At home on my
>> personal server I have root-on-LVM-on-LUKS_crypto-on-RAID5.  When I
>> finally
>> get the money and wherewithal to upgrade my home server I'll switch it to
>> RAID6.  With ever larger drives and the desire to not lose 50% of the
>> total
>> space to RAID1, should I move up to RAID6?  Provided, of course, that the
>> final configuration has a sufficient number of drives for the desired RAID
>> level.
>>
>>
>> 2) Processor & motherboard
>>
>> The only real requirement that has been passed down to me, other than a
>> rough
>> upper limit on funds, is that the new machine should have strong parallel
>> processing capabilities.  Multiple cores is a given, but there's also the
>> possibility of multiple multi-core CPUs.  This parallel processing will be
>> used for useful data processing, of course, but the primary use will be
>> developing that code and running smaller jobs.  Larger jobs with more data
>> would be moved off to larger clusters.
>>
>> It has been some time since I last had to do this.  Personal computers,
>> on my
>> own tight budget, yes, but now I have been given a high enough cap that I
>> can
>> look at more options.
>>
>> And great googley moogley!  Just a cursory glance on Newegg was enough
>> for a
>> good scare.  From $200 to $1000 there are CPUs of every conceivable
>> combination of speed, number of cores, core name, and socket type.  I'm
>> definitely in over my head here, it seems.
>>
>> Multiple physical CPUs would appear to require a "server" motherboard and
>> a
>> Xeon CPU.  There is only one 8-core desktop-class CPU, so going that route
>> would mean either a 4- or 6-core CPU.  Server-class CPUs have a much
>> larger
>> spread and 4 to 8 cores seems feasible.  I did notice also that the
>> server-class Xeon chips tend to have significantly lower wattage than
>> similar
>> desktop-class CPUs.
>>
>> At the same time, however, I can't simply pick a maximum price point,
>> let's
>> say $800, and pick the best available CPU.  At any given price you can
>> adjust
>> the sliders for frequency, number of cores, etc. and still have several
>> choices for "best".
>>
>> With the rather vague usage scenario I've given above, how would you
>> proceed?
>> Fancy and fast six-core "desktop" CPU, or a fancier Xeon (maybe two?)
>> eight-core CPU?  And then there's the offerings from AMD, though that
>> seems to
>> be rather less to sort through... and then the choice of motherboard...
>> Ugh...
>>
>> Any available chip will be able to handle the "usual" tasks we're likely
>> to
>> throw at it: regular desktop applications/usage, sharing data among remote
>> users, the small amount of web and mail traffic, etc.  Are Intel and AMD
>> once
>> again at parity with regards to running mathematical jobs?  I remember a
>> few
>> years back that AMD's highly anticipated Bulldozer core was being
>> routinely
>> crushed by Intel's then-available cores in raw integer and floating point
>> math
>> tasks.  Is one markedly better than the other these days?
>>
>> Are there any current CPU models that the community at large are flocking
>> towards?  A model considered a good buy or particularly reliable, that
>> sort of
>> thing?
>>
>> Oh, and though it would seem like an entirely logical direction to move
>> in, we
>> are not currently doing any general purpose GPU type work.  I want to keep
>> that avenue open, but whatever I put together now doesn't need to
>> accomodate,
>> for example, four giant power hungry video cards.  Just adding that in
>> case it
>> helps narrow the list at all.
>>
>>
>> So many more variables to juggle.  Brain, ceasing to function...  Having
>> seen
>> that the landscape is far more vast than I was expecting, I would greatly
>> appreciate any advice.
>>
>>
>> --
>> --John Gruenenfelder    Systems Manager, MKS Imaging Technology, LLC.
>> My various (fun) projects  --  https://bach.as.arizona.edu/~johng
>> "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood
>> of my enemies!"
>>         --Sam of Sam & Max
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
-john
To be or not to be, that is the question
                2b || !2b
(0b10)*(0b1100010) || !(0b10)*(0b1100010)
        0b11000100 || !0b11000100
        0b11000100 ||  0b00111011
               0b11111111
255, that is the answer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20150625/10c46f60/attachment-0001.html>