Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Intel SSD x25-Extreme vs. OCZ Vertex 2 SATATII

13 May 2010   #21
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
I am going to go with VMware, running Windows Web Server 2008 R2 on one virtual machine (VM1) with the web app (asp.net), and Windows 7 Ultimate 64 on the other virtual machine (VM2) with Microsoft SQL Server 2008 (or R2) as well as to hold the session state.
Why are you going to use a desktop OS on the 2nd VM and then put SQL Server on it? Seems like it would be better to run Server 2008 R2 on that second machine and run SQL on that.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
14 May 2010   #22
jayhawker

Windows Web Server 2008 R2
 
 

In that case, what would I be running on the 1st VM. I was thinking that I would want the Web App to run on VM1, and that would require Windows Web Server 2008 R2, and that I would want my SQL Server on a different VM. I could use another Windows Web Server 2008 R2 on it as well, but I think I am just throwing money away in doing so. I could use Windows XP 64, but feel the small amount of extra expense to use Windows 7 ultimate 64 would be worth it.

If I am doing something wrong in what I am expecting please do point it out.

Thanks
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #23
zzz2496

Windows7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

*shakes head...*

Microsoft software stack is very expensive, huh? I mean, the whole stack is just ridiculously expensive, the hardware must have quite a bit more (especially RAM), the software licenses, not to mention the development tools, it's expensive at every level for little to no superiority to Open Source software stack.

If I were you, I'd just go with Linux for all of my production systems - that is leaving the whole MS software stack, that is if you can port/migrate your current solution to Linux. Linux's file system is close to indestructible, the applications (apache, postgesql, etc) uses very low system resources, leaving the resources to your app processing, not the OS. The manageability aspect, it's second to none, I can even say - too much options... It's just that good... But each to their own, my current solution loves apache/php/postgresql a lot, so I don't have anything to say. Good luck with your server setup, though...

zzz2496
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

14 May 2010   #24
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
. I was thinking that I would want the Web App to run on VM1, and that would require Windows Web Server 2008 R2
The Web Server Edition of Windows is a more streamlined and friendlier priced OS for delivering web apps. There are limitations with regards to what else you could do with the product if you chose to do so. There is nothing stopping you from using a Windows 2008 R2 standard version of the software either and running a website from that. It's just more costly.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
could use another Windows Web Server 2008 R2 on it as well, but I think I am just throwing money away in doing so.
If i were going to run a SQL Server, it wouldn't likely be on the web edition of the OS...but rather the standard edition of the OS.

As far as cost goes...the cost of the OS is going to be small in comparison to the hardware and moreso SQL server. Have you looked into the pricing for running SQL Server yet???? Since you are going to run a web app for an unlimited number of Internet hits, you need a version that is licensed at the processor level rather than at a CAL (client access level). If memory serves me correctly, this is going to be around $6,000 for that license.

If I were you, I would strongly be looking at a hosting provider that can supply these licenses to you under an SPLA agreement and charge you a monthly fee for usage.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #25
zzz2496

Windows7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
. I was thinking that I would want the Web App to run on VM1, and that would require Windows Web Server 2008 R2
The Web Server Edition of Windows is a more streamlined and friendlier priced OS for delivering web apps. There are limitations with regards to what else you could do with the product if you chose to do so. There is nothing stopping you from using a Windows 2008 R2 standard version of the software either and running a website from that. It's just more costly.

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
could use another Windows Web Server 2008 R2 on it as well, but I think I am just throwing money away in doing so.
If i were going to run a SQL Server, it wouldn't likely be on the web edition of the OS...but rather the standard edition of the OS.

As far as cost goes...the cost of the OS is going to be small in comparison to the hardware and moreso SQL server. Have you looked into the pricing for running SQL Server yet???? Since you are going to run a web app for an unlimited number of Internet hits, you need a version that is licensed at the processor level rather than at a CAL (client access level). If memory serves me correctly, this is going to be around $6,000 for that license.

If I were you, I would strongly be looking at a hosting provider that can supply these licenses to you under an SPLA agreement and charge you a monthly fee for usage.
That is darn expensive...

zzz2496
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #26
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by jayhawker View Post
There are actually several reasons, and not all have to do with performance. For example, 5 SSD's vx 5 VelociRaptors would use negligible power (needs smaller power supply) and will run much, much cooler (less fans, allows me to put them into 2U rack and maybe even 1U Rack).
--------><----------
Thanks for the reply

The SSD's dont consume less power than regular HHD's. The power consumption thing was disproven: The SSD Power Consumption Hoax : Flash SSDs Don?t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime ? they Reduce It

Tom's did a revision of the test for just the SSD: Flash SSD Update: More Results, Answers : An Apology First ? And One New SSD To Prove Us Right

Page 8: Test System and Power Measurements : Flash SSD Update: More Results, Answers
This test shows that one SSD actually did out perform:
"However, itís the new OCZ Flash SSD that really shines. It provides 5-6x more performance per watt than the mechanical hard drives. Thatís precisely what our initial article should have said: most of the Flash SSDs just arenít that much better ó until now, as shown by OCZ."
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #27
zzz2496

Windows7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Thorsen, in an interactive system, like ours desktop systems, every bit of improvement we can "feel" it. But in a server system, where the data access behavior is FAR different than ours, it will most likely you won't even feel the difference. You don't stand there to look at the performance data, it happens way too fast for us users to "feel".

Here's the logic, at any given time, when a web page is requested, you query the database server for some content. The query it self will run at most around 50-500ms, that with all data returned. The web server it self with all iteration will most likely cost around 50-200ms to generate the page, add the transfer time, you get around a sec... let's say the server is hit with 7200 requests per second, that is 2 request each second (that's alot of requests), if 70% of those requests are "static" pages, then the SQL server will most likely cache the result so that it won't query it the second time, the web server also does some caching of it self, will also reduce the amount of time to query... It's not that "heavy" in a sense - this example contains 25.920.000 hits per hour, way above an average web server... If the OP's hits projection is around 5000-7000 hits per hour, the hardware + OS overhead way above the processing cost it self... My own running app, an internal portal with ~10k hits per hour cannot even scratch the power of IBM X3650 dual quad Xeon with 1GB of memory (4GB available, 1GB assigned to the guest OS). 90++% of the time, the whole thing is sitting idle... That's 10k hits per hour... That's 1 processing every 21.6 seconds...

It'll be different if you're talking about a database server that's around 1M hits per hour with database size more than 6GB, that'll need some serious processing power + speedy storage system (watch the emphasis of : storage system). Or maybe in a cluster of Database servers with more than 5M hits with database size of more than 10GB. In this kind of workload, you don't want to rely on just a RAID 1 or RAID 10, most of the time you'd want RAID 50 or RAID 60 with several hot spares on a several SAN servers. The data is much more valuable than the hardware. Looking at these configurations, using SSD is still waaaaaaayyyy too expensive, even for corporations... Unless the SSD's price can match the price of similarly sized SAS/FC HDD.

zzz2496.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #28
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

I agree zzz2496. I work with DB's and Citrix environments. Most stuff is local, but I wouldn't expect using SSD's for this.

Quote by Jayhawker "actually several reasons, and not all have to do with performance"

Since the OP was requesting info on this, I figured I would post it.
(I could have added a disclaimer that little-to-no performance gain would be seen, but it had already been stated in others posts.)


On the topic of how the servers and all work: I like your break-down of each type and its general speeds. thats good info. I know thats acurate as ------ hmmm work related stuff....--------------


All in all....I wasn't suggesting using SSD's lol, moreso which one you would want if you were going to go that route. The report from Tom's hardware originally claimed that SSD's use more power than spinning HDD's, but that was destroyed when the tested OCZ Sata II out-performed everything else. Side note: I want one but they are expensive OCZ CORE SERIES SATA II 2.5" SSD 128GB Solid State Drive | PowerMax
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #29
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

Power savings on hard drives is simply miniscule compared to the other high draw components in a system (CPU and GPU). I've always felt the same way about performance drives versus green drives. With the "very small" difference, if performance matters, it just doesn't pan out. I mean, if performance increases 10% on a non-green drive and you can finish your tasks 10% faster and shut down your machine 10% sooner, you save 100% of your total machines power over that 10% period of time which far and away would exceed the power differences saved between performance and green drives.

I could understand if regular drives took 200 watts and a green drive took 30. But it's simply nowhere near that dramatic.

In all of the servers that I have ever worked with, I haven't been inclined to go the SSD route in any of them. 10k and 15k sas spindles on a quality RAID controller have provided more than enough for my needs.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 May 2010   #30
Thorsen

Win7 Home Premium 64x
 
 

pparks1,

Well, I haven't worked with maintaining Hardware for servers, so Im out of my league on this one. I work with DB's and know lots of general computer stuff, but you and zzz2496 definitely have more experience than I.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Intel SSD x25-Extreme vs. OCZ Vertex 2 SATATII




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Intel finally releases Haswell-E Extreme Edition processors
Read more at: Intel finally releases Haswell-E Extreme Edition processors | ZDNet
News
AMD prepping Centurion FX processor to take on Intel Core i7 Extreme
Read the full article here: AMD prepping Centurion FX processor to take on Intel Core i7 Extreme CPUs? | ZDNet Wow if this is true this could be a serious shake up to the enthusiasts market....Wow just wow.:party:
News
Strange RAM problem with Intel DG45SG extreme motherboard
My PC Configuration and its working great .... Problem is i want to increase my RAM, so I bought a Transcend 2GB DDR 3 -1333 DIMM CL9 RAM today which is same model as the current 2GB RAM that's running on my PC but the new RAM is not working on my PC !!! I tried the new RAM on an other...
Hardware & Devices
Can't open Intel ģ Extreme graphics control panel suddenly
Hi I recently got a new laptop: HP Pavilion dv6-6b12ed I have a Control panel from Intel where I could change the colors of my screen and other stuff, but I can't get it to open! Here's my weird problem: It shows in the system tray but when I click it I see this: ...
Graphic Cards
Intel 80GB X25M SSD vs OCZ 120GB Vertex 2 SSD?
Well hey guys, i am planning to buy a macbook pro i5 (15.3) with 2.4GHz and i am also planning on getting a SSD for it internally. I am fairly new to the ssd generation and i am aware of how the huge improvements are from a hdd to a ssd. But the real question is, which ssd is better? I just looked...
Performance & Maintenance
Intel's upcoming Core i7 975 Extreme leaked?
more: Intel's upcoming Core i7 975 Extreme leaked? - TechSpot News
News


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App