• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Atom (330) based FTP/email server. Performance predictions.

Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#1
I'm about to set up a little miniserver for FTP and email for not more than 15 people. Occasional use.

Objective: Small, silent, 24/7, low power consumption, can sit in a cupboard with ambient temps no active colling considerations requires. Once set up, consoleless. RDP to server to manage.

Proposed solution:


Anybody got a prediction about performance? It will be more than enough for FTP/email for 15 people, but do you think I could also:

1./ Run OCR software on it (Scan to folder gets auto OCR and PDF'd)

2./ Run a "private" webserver, meaning, some web based pages/tools for the 15 users only. While generally exposed (accessible) from the internet, the content is only interesting to a few and users are predconfigured, ie. no public access beyond the home page.

************************
PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS
************************

Anybody want me to run (simple) benchmark on the system for comparative purposes? Name your benchmark.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#2
OK, I've commissioned the server and have conducted some initial performance tests. See below:



WOW! Look at this thing.

It has half the clock speed of a P4 Extreme 3.2Ghz, and so single thread applications go about half the speed. (see superpi). However, Cinebench10 shows some really interesting results:

1./ The Atom 330 can nearly keep up with the P4EE on multithreaded tasks.
2./ The performance improvement of HT is much much better on 330 than on P4. We all know how lame HT was on P4, but on 330 and i7 HT really does add value. HT adds about 1.41x speed up on Atom, but only 1.04x on P4EE.

On wPrime, Generic CPU bench and Crystal Mark ALU and FPU, the multicore Atom 330 matches the P4EE on performance.

CONCLUSION 1. All office P4 based systems should be retired, esp. "low demand" LAN servers and fileservers. Replacing them with Atom 330 makes sense due to lower power consumption and lower noise for 24/7.

CONCLUSION 2. Atom 330 is more than enough power for "productivity" computers, like MS office, etc.

Heat observation. While the Atom 330 system draws a lot less power and makes a lot less heat that a P4 system, it still gets quite hot. And guess what? It isnt the CPU but the silly chipset.

Let's hope 330 system builders start using the GSE chipset or nV ION that only requires passive cooling.
 
Last edited:

DanTheBanjoman

Señor Moderator
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,488 (2.12/day)
Likes
1,331
#4
It's a file/web/mail server and you run CPU benchmarks?
No offense, but shouldn't you be looking at network throughput? Web/mail won't cause much load so can be ignored. (I'm sure you don't plan to give it much load) As a file server performance becomes interesting.
 

Jakl

New Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
515 (0.16/day)
Likes
50
Location
Home
System Name AMD Fun Rig | Intel Lil' Gaming Rig
Processor 720BE x4 3.4ghz 1.375v | E8400 4ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P | eVGA 780i
Cooling Scythe Mugen | TRUE
Memory G.Skill 2x2gb 1600 | 4x1gb Crucial 800
Video Card(s) ATI 3870 | eVGA 9800GTX
Storage 1TB Seagate | 1TB Seagate
Display(s) 24" ASUS VK246H | 28" Acer LCD TV | 40" Sony V4100
Case Lian Li | Cosmos 1000
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2X | Onboard
Power Supply Thermaltake 1200W | PC Silencer 750
Software Win7 64
#5
you think a atom 270 setup with a large hdd would make for a good dedicated torrent DLer?
It should be fine, but probably your bandwidth will go sky rockin high if you have alot of leachers...
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#6
It's a file/web/mail server and you run CPU benchmarks?
No offense, but shouldn't you be looking at network throughput? Web/mail won't cause much load so can be ignored. (I'm sure you don't plan to give it much load) As a file server performance becomes interesting.
Dan, Please read OP.

1./ Run OCR software on it (Scan to folder gets auto OCR and PDF'd)

2./ Run a "private" webserver, meaning, some web based pages/tools for the 15 users only. While generally exposed (accessible) from the internet, the content is only interesting to a few and users are predconfigured, ie. no public access beyond the home page.
FYI it is managing a HP 9200c and running HP Digital Sender Software, with embedded workflow ReadIRIS.

Fileserver? Local 1GB LAN. Network throughput test, IMO, moot. Small files, not high demand transaction loading. WAN access? Small files via FTP, max 15-25 users total, not more than 2 or 3 concurrent. Limited by ISP-router at 6Mbit/2Mbit ASDL. Simple file/webs serving BUT major CPU intensive services like OCR and PDF creation. Therefore CPU benchmarks. QED.

DO YOU WANT ME TO RUN ANY SPECIFIC TESTS? Name your benchmark and I will run it. PS. No manual stopwatch stuff. Must be a load-and-go benchmark utility. Happy to conduct network tests if you like... link to your prefered test.
 
Last edited: