how many GHz do servers have?

[CyberFox]

Hi,
I was just wondering what does the common server have for CPUs now. I am doing a school report on computers and I am trying to explain how far computers have advanced over the past few years.


Write back
Thank You

[thegreatone]

I would say Dual 2.6's is an amost accurate estimate for a average server.

[CyberFox]

Me agian,
Thank you for your reply but I thought they would have uppwards of 300GHz.
Now thats what 2.7 might mean im sort of new at the computer thing but I am going to go to school for computers so if you guys could be so nice as to tell me if 2.7 actualy means 270 or something I would be pleased

Than You
CyberFox

[CyberFox]

oh and sorry i didnt tag it with the scales for respect
You have my respect and apreciate all you have told me
CyberFox

[thegreatone]

Nonono, it would indded be nice to see servers with 300Ghz processors... but thats just too far into the future...
2 2.6Ghz Prroccessors seem to do the job nicely
Specially when they're Xeons... Or Dual-Core

[Ideas Man]

300GHz, now that's my type of computer. As thegreatone said, usually something with two or more processors at about 3.0GHz or more (not much more) Intel Xeons.

Of course it depends on the type of server too, database servers require different specs to say a fileserver.

[NoteMe]

If you go to pages where you can rent server space you can often see how fast they are. Like this one:
http://www.newservers.com/

If you do more searches you will see more servers. And you can make up your own mind about the average. But remember that many pages can share a server, unless it is a dedicated server, so then in practice you don't get all the speed the server can give.

An other thing to notice is that the bandwith is ofthen more importent then the speed of the server it self. Sure if it is a game server or database server, it has to be fast to calculate stuff, but many pages are more restricted because of the time it takes to send the page, rather then doing the actual processing on the server. So if this board had something like a 300GHz processor doesn't mean that the page would go THAT much faster, because most of the time (except when you are doing searches) it takes very little to no time to process the request on the server.




ØØ

[CyberFox]

Thanks you guys for all your help
CyberFox

[Dave Sell]

300GHz? Maybe in the year 2452....

[ThaRubby]

Hmm dual core 64 bit xeon sounds awesome . Anways a server doesnt have to have a lot of ghz or mhz, it really depends on what its going to be doing. My old computer handled a lot of traffic with 1 ghz and 128 mb ram. :P

[mendhak]

By the year 2452, the concept of "Ghz" will not exist, there will be a new processing paradigm.

[ThaRubby]

You might have that old crappy 500 ghz that you never use because its too fing slow

[Kasracer]

300GHz.

You asked about servers, not super computers and I would disagree with the average server speed at 2.6

From all of the web servers I've delt with and seeing the ones most commonly for sale, the average server is probably more like 1.8GHz single-cpu. 2.6GHz dual P4s is a nice idea but practically, most servers I've run accross are much less than that.

Most places that sell servers for web space like File Shack, there biggest seller is like a 1.6GHz Celeron.

Now if it's a database server for a large company or something like that, then I'd expect 2 or more CPUs.

.
if 2.7 actualy means 270 or something I would be pleased

2.7GHz is approx 2700MHz

[RobDog888]

I would dis-agree also. We have several clients with multi-cpu servers and everyone is always strapped for $$$. They dont buy
whats just come out or is high end. They have whatever will get the job done and thats all.

I have one client with a 4 CPU PIII 500 Mhz Server with 2 Gigs of RAM. If you buy a main board that can support multiple cpus but dont load it
up initially you can add more cpus later depending on the system load.

We run a few multi CPU servers too. No Xeon CPUs but they work great. 2 CPU PIII 550 SQL Server, 3 CPU PIII 500 Terminal Server,
3 CPU PIII 550 PDC, etc.

[VBdynamic]

Like others have said, it kinda depends on what you want the server to do. Where I work, we have two 1.7 GHz P4's (one with 1.5 gigs Ram and the other has 512 megs Ram), a 2.4GHz P4 with 512 Megs of Ram and a 450 mHz P2 Xeon with 128 megs of ram. The two 1.7's are Windows 2000 Active Directory Domain Controllers and the other two run Windows server 2003 standard. The 450 is just a file server and the 2.4 runs a gradebook program.

[szlamany]

This seems to be a slightly stale thread...

But I still have to comment.

CPU speed is a desktop/workstation issue. SERVER's do not need fast CPU's - what they need is lots and lots of memory/incredible bus/cache properties.

That is because they have a completely different requirement then a user workstation does.

[ALL]

if they run a database like MYSQL it will take alot of cpu usage though, if frequently used!

my fathers server has:
2GB RAM
2 * 160GB HDD (plus 2 mirrors)
2 Xeon processors (runs at about 4.2GHZ)
and a crappy graphix card (completely un nessessary)

[szlamany]

if they run a database like MYSQL it will take alot of cpu usage though, if frequently used!

For a DB server - such as MS SQL Server - this is not really an accurate statement.

Just visit this DELL site - these are servers - low end is 1.6 GHZ (a joke for a desktop machine today) - highend 3.6 GHZ.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...555&l=en&s=biz

Then this workstation link shows only machines in the 3.8 GHZ range.

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...555&l=en&s=biz

As I said in my prior post - CPU SPEED is a workstation issue.

A DB, like MS SQL Server, requires a certain amount of memory for each thread - and each query/connection is a thread. So you can see how memory become the bottleneck in a server quickly.

Recently we had a query on a SQL box that did a complex algorithm - taking 4 minutes to complete - and performing hundreds-of-thousands of iterations in a cursor (yuk...). Looking at the server CPU usage showed it only at 80% (normally at less then 50%). This meant to us we still had CPU left to spare and other things were causing the 4 minute timing (probably DISK I/O).