my dream machine

I started shopping around for parts. I want to build a "dream" machine. This "server" if you will, will serve as my education center. I want to load vmware on it and then have all kinds of operating systems on it. From Solaris 10 to RedHat, Unbuntu, Windows 2003, 2008, a couple XP's. I have a couple questions that I would like everyones opinion on.

1.) If you had the choice between 2 physical cpus running the dual cores and 1 quad core which would you choose? For example if you had to choose between (1) AMD Opteron 2378 Shanghai 2.4GHz Quad-Core Server Processor or (2) AMD Opteron 280 Italy 2.4GHz Socket 940 Dual-Core Processor.

2.) How much RAM do you think I would need to run the computer and then a couple VM's all at the same time? I was thinking that I will probably need around 8 Gigs at least.

3.) Has anyone been able to experience the difference between the Sata 3 and the scsi u320. I know that the scsi speeds are faster, however, is scsi THAT much faster than the sata 3? I myself have not had any experience with any of the two.

Look forward to your opinions!

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

vCole

My current machine is as follows:

Intel Quad2Duo Q6600 @ 2.4ghz
8GB DDR2-800
EVGA GTX260 896mb
500GB SATA HDD (Seagate)

I run VM's/games/etc. without any hitches.

tiersten

tornado42 wrote: »

1.) If you had the choice between 2 physical cpus running the dual cores and 1 quad core which would you choose? For example if you had to choose between (1) AMD Opteron 2378 Shanghai 2.4GHz Quad-Core Server Processor or (2) AMD Opteron 280 Italy 2.4GHz Socket 940 Dual-Core Processor.

2x Dual Core will be faster than 1x Quad Core because each physical CPU package has its own interface instead of all 4 sharing 1.

tornado42 wrote: »

3.) Has anyone been able to experience the difference between the Sata 3 and the scsi u320. I know that the scsi speeds are faster, however, is scsi THAT much faster than the sata 3? I myself have not had any experience with any of the two.

If it is just a home lab then SATA will be fine. If you really want better IOPS then use SAS instead of SCSI. As many spindles as you can as well.

tornado42

FadeToBright wrote: »

My current machine is as follows:

Intel Quad2Duo Q6600 @ 2.4ghz
8GB DDR2-800
EVGA GTX260 896mb
500GB SATA HDD (Seagate)

I run VM's/games/etc. without any hitches.

do you ever run multiple vm's at the same time? I was just curious to know how that worked out for you? does it get really laggy?

rfult001

1. Couldn't really give an opinion on this as I haven't used either, you probably won't see much of a difference in this application though.

2. I have 6 VM's that are always on running of of 4 GB of DDR2 with no lag. 8 GB would be nice, but not necessary. VMWare will allocate the amount of RAM that you specify for the the VM and that RAM will not be available, keep this in mind when creating your VM's. I use the minimum amount necessary to run the guest OS for my labs, I would allocate more if the VM's were used in a production environment.

3. I didn't know SATA rev. 3 have been released yet ?

Compared to SATA 2 drives (6 GB/s), Ultra320 SCSI is faster. This mostly has to do with the actual drive speed though. Most U320 SCSI drives are 15k rpm as opposed to the 7200 or 10k rpm drives that are available in SATA 2. Again, I use SATA 2 since it is cheaper.

My current workstation setup:

Intel Q6600 quad-core
4 GB RAM
500 GB SATA 2 HDD - Primary
1.5 TB SATA 2 HDD - Storage
128 MB PCI-E video
Vista x64/XP Pro x64 dual boot

VMWare Workstation 6.5 runs:
Windows Server 2003 Ent., Windows Server 2003 Std., 2x XP Pro, Ubuntu 8.04, CentOS 5. These are always on, I have a couple others that I play with occasionally. I will be setting up Solaris in the near future, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

This has been more than sufficient for running my labs and it handles Dynamips pretty well too. This is my main computer for goofing off at home as well.

vCole

tornado42 wrote: »

do you ever run multiple vm's at the same time? I was just curious to know how that worked out for you? does it get really laggy?

I do without issues.

dynamik

You should look at building an ESXi-compatible whitebox: vm-help.com Whitebox HCL

For CPU, look at a board that'll support two CPUs. You can get one to get started and have room to add a second if need. I'd start with a quad, and leave room for another, but YMMV.

For disks, look at the WD Velociraptors. You mind find them to be a good mix of price, performance, and storage. Also, there's more than just bus speed to look at. Most SATA drives max out at 7200rpm, while SCSI will do 10k and 15k. SCSI also seem to be more reliable.

My current system has a Q9550, 16gb ram, OS in mirror and a six-drive stripe* for VMs.

*That's not nearly as impressive as it sounds. You can get 160GB SATA-II 7200rpm drives on NewEgg for $40. It does run great though.

Paul Boz

lol I have a 2.0ghz dual core intel processor with 4 gigs of ram in my xps M1330 laptop and I can run 5-6 virtual machines at once. As long as you're not slamming each virtual machine constantly you're fine. Also, you don't need to run 5-6 machines at once in most conditions, so a middle of the road system will get the job done.

people go overboard building virtualization boxes sometimes.

kriscamaro68

I would get a corei7 920 12gb ram a bunch of seagate 500 gb hd's and decent video card and a full tower case to stack all the hd's in and call it a day. That will run everything you could ever want.

Paul Boz

Including a power drain that could probably sustain a third world country

dynamik

Paul Boz wrote: »

people go overboard building virtualization boxes sometimes.

That's impossible!

I actually have a 2k3 forest, a 2k8 forest, Exchange, Sharepoint, and I'm going to add ISA and SQL when I get bored. I can get 8-12 going on my laptop, but the single disk can be a bottleneck.

tiersten

Paul Boz wrote: »

people go overboard building virtualization boxes sometimes.

I've got an ESX cluster...

Paul Boz

There are certainly exceptions to the rule

I've been called loony for having more Cisco gear than a lot of businesses. I'm sure Mike is probably the same way.