[mapguide-users] Researching Processors for MGOS

[Martin Morrison]

Per core performance is a good thing...

However, you don't mention disk access.  I would spend more on faster disks/SSDs than cores.

Martin Morrison
Infrastructure Application Engineer/Systems Analyst
 Engineering Design Systems, Inc.
540.345.1410
martin.morrison at edsi.com<mailto:martin.morrison at edsi.com>
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D2249F.40681A50]
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D2249F.40681A50]<http://www.facebook.com/engineeringdesignsystemsinc>[cid:image003.jpg at 01D2249F.40681A50]<http://www.twitter.com/engdesignsystem> [cid:image004.jpg at 01D2249F.40681A50] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkJ7-Sbji64Dwke89L1R8Lw>
www.edsi.com<http://www.edsi.com>

From: mapguide-users [mailto:mapguide-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tim Price
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 11:33 AM
To: 'mapguide-users at lists.osgeo.org' <mapguide-users at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [mapguide-users] Researching Processors for MGOS

Happy Friday Everyone,

We're beginning the process of looking at a speedy Dell windows server for a MGOS3.1/Rest/custom viewer installation for a concurrent user base of 10-20 staff. (total staff 100-150) We rely heavily on tile definitions, load procedures and MS SQL vector data sources with many filters/expressions/theming/schema overrides on the layers. FDO is looking at gdal rasters, shape and MS sql.

We currently run a Intel E5-2690 (8 core, 16 thread) processor with all MG services on that hardware server. It runs no other applications. What we can gleam form our setup is that the per-core performance seems to be more important than RAM or number of cores of a MGOS installation in our configuration. This is because RAM and # cores is generous on most servers these days. We are studying https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html . Can anyone confirm that per-core performance is what we are really after or provide additional advice?

Thanks,

-Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20170818/d4c34484/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8545 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20170818/d4c34484/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 679 bytes
Desc: image006.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20170818/d4c34484/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 877 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20170818/d4c34484/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 814 bytes
Desc: image008.jpg
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20170818/d4c34484/attachment-0003.jpg>