This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: Server Performance
From: Bill Carlson <wcarlson@vh.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:24:56 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Madel, Kurt wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> I don't know much about the abilities of a server. I know a lot of you on
> the list are running servers and would like your opinion on whether or not
> the following server is adequate for the following job:
>
> The Server:
>
> Dual Pentium 233 (66MHz bus)
> 196 MB RAM
> 8.4 GB IDE Hard Drive x2
> RH 6.0 configured for smb, AppleTalk via Netatalk, IP Masq
>
> The Network:
>
> 10-base-T based
> Server is connected to a 1 Mbit DSL line
> 6 iMacs going through server for Internet and file sharing via AppleTalk
> 12 Power PC's same as iMac's
> 10 PC's, all 100MHz 486's w/16 MB RAM used as X Terminals (this is what I
> am really wondering about)
>
>
> This weekend, we are planning to upgrade the server to:
>
> dual Pentium III 450 (100MHz bus)
> 256MB RAM PC100
>
> Do you believe that this will make a noticeable difference in the
> performance of the network.
>
Without some more information on your setup, I would venture an opinion of
NO. Upgrading your network (or at least the server) to 100Mb would most
likely give you the most bang for the buck. Moving the clients to switched
10Mb or switched 100Mb would help even more.
That IDE drive isn't helping anything either, I would move to SCSI before
upping the processor.
What kind of load does the server show from uptime?
===
Subject: Re: Server Performance
From: "Steve \"Stevers!\" Coile" <scoile@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:38:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Madel, Kurt wrote:
> I don't know much about the abilities of a server. I know a lot of you on
> the list are running servers and would like your opinion on whether or not
> the following server is adequate for the following job:
>
> The Server:
>
> Dual Pentium 233 (66MHz bus)
> 196 MB RAM
> 8.4 GB IDE Hard Drive x2
> RH 6.0 configured for smb, AppleTalk via Netatalk, IP Masq
>
> The Network:
>
> 10-base-T based
> Server is connected to a 1 Mbit DSL line
> 6 iMacs going through server for Internet and file sharing via AppleTalk
> 12 Power PC's same as iMac's
For the above, your setup should be *more* than adequate.
> 10 PC's, all 100MHz 486's w/16 MB RAM used as X Terminals (this is what I
> am really wondering about)
Indeed, this is the real question. When you refer to them as "X
Terminals", do you mean they'll be running applications on the server
and simply displaying the output on the workstations? If so, that can
be pretty resource intensive, especially if they'll be running Netscape.
Even worse if you're running a productivity suite, such as Applix or
(much, much worse) StarOffice. Memory is likely to be the bottleneck.
Still, 196 MB is a good start. I'd give the system a try. It certainly
isn't dramatically under powered, so you should at least be able to get
usable performance until you upgrade.
===
Subject: RE: Server Performance
From: "Steve \"Stevers!\" Coile" <scoile@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Madel, Kurt wrote:
> Yes, the x terminals will be running applications on the server, at least
> Netscape and an editor. One thing I was also wondering about, is although
> the server is constantly using 90-99% of its physical memory, it is always
> using the same amount of its swap space, 1% of 96MB. Is something setup
> incorrectly or does this sound ok?
That's normal. The kernel uses unused RAM for disk caching and buffering.
===
Subject: RE: Server Performance
From: Bill Carlson <wcarlson@vh.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:17:28 -0500 (CDT)
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Madel, Kurt wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> Just upgrading the server to 100Mb would show an appreciable difference in
> performance, while leaving everything else on 10Mb. We have two 10/100Mb
> cards we can put into the server, but really can't afford to upgrade all the
> cards on the network. Of course the iMacs come with 10/100Mb cards so I
> suppose we could spend some money on a 10/100Mb hub.
>
Kurt,
If you want to stay on the cheap side, I would but 2 10/100 NICs in the
server and get a couple of Asante 10/100 switches, I forget the model
number. They have 2 10/100 ports and 8 10 ports, all switched. Getting 2
of them will allow you to segment your network, but you'll probably have
to redo some of your IP assignments. I picked one up on Onsale for $64,
they might still have some.
Xclients not only load the server machine, they also put a fair load on
the network, I would suspect that is your bottle neck right now.
Things to check:
uptime: what is the load average when the network seems slow? I'm not sure
with a dual processor machine, should be able to handle 5-6 I would think.
ifconfig: check collisions on the interface, if the ratio of collisions to
packets is over 40%, the culprit is the network.
As far as free memory, if the machine is using all physical memory, that's
good (it should use it for something, file caching at least). If the
amount of swap in use is small, most likely you have plenty of memory, the
kernel works hard to swap out all the memory it can if it is not being
accessed, so a running system usually shows show swap in use.
For example, here's free on my machine right now (desktop only):
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 128028 119012 9016 64640 28700 23204
-/+ buffers/cache: 67108 60920
Swap: 128484 4 128480
I'm not using any swap and I still have real memory free, so I'm sitting
just fine (this is with uptime at 13 days).
I'd say upping your network should be your first bet and will actually be
cheaper and less painful than touching the server.
===