Enterprise Web Server/System Requirements - Revision history

Eurosign at 20:05, 28 April 2013

2013-04-28T20:05:37Z

Eurosign at 20:05, 28 April 2013

2013-04-28T20:05:03Z

Show changes

Eurosign at 19:56, 28 April 2013

2013-04-28T19:56:14Z

Paulo Santos at 19:28, 19 March 2013

2013-03-19T19:28:16Z

Paulo Santos: /* Notes */

2013-02-26T14:41:44Z

‎Notes

Paulo Santos: /* Notes */

2013-02-26T14:40:44Z

‎Notes

Paulo Santos at 14:39, 26 February 2013

2013-02-26T14:39:35Z

Paulo Santos: /* Recommended System */

2013-02-15T17:34:41Z

‎Recommended System

Paulo Santos: /* Recommended System */

2013-02-15T17:33:19Z

‎Recommended System

Paulo Santos: /* Recommended System */

2013-02-15T17:32:28Z

‎Recommended System

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:05, 28 April 2013
Line 21:		Line 21:
	\|}		\|}

−	Content Manager requirements vary greatly depending on how many projects will be stored, how many simultaneous synchronizations will be made and how fast a project needs to be downloaded. By ensuring adequate server hardware performance throughput will largely be limited by the network connection. For WAN / Internet implementations, consider using a Server Hosting Provider.	+	Content Manager requirements vary greatly depending on how many projects will be stored, how many simultaneous synchronizations will be made and how fast a project needs to be downloaded. By ensuring adequate server hardware performance, throughput will largely be limited by the network connection. For WAN / Internet implementations, consider using a Server Hosting Provider.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 |-
 |OS
-|Linux or Microsoft Windows 7
+|Microsoft Windows 7 Pro
-|Linux or Microsoft Windows Server
+|Microsoft Windows Server
 |}

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 |}
-Enterprise Web Server requirements vary greatly depending on how many projects will be stored, how many simultaneous synchronizations will be made and how fast a project needs to be downloaded. Please refer to the benchmarks below to identify the most suitable system.
+Content Manager requirements vary greatly depending on how many projects will be stored, how many simultaneous synchronizations will be made and how fast a project needs to be downloaded. Please refer to the benchmarks below to identify the most suitable system.
 =Benchmarks=
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ==Introduction==
-These benchmarks serve as a reference to understand the implications certain types of hardware have in the Enterprise Web Server performance.
+These benchmarks serve as a reference to understand the implications certain types of hardware have in the Content Manager performance.
 Each test runs on one project and consists of fetching that project with 1, 2, 5, 10 and 25 simultaneous threads, simulating simultaneous connections from players. The same test is done 2 times (tries) per hardware setup.

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 HW#1 is, as proven by the tests, highly discouraged. Its CPU is slow and doesn't even scale to the network speed. Also, usually these CPUs are used with slow and unreliable hard drives.
-HW#4 shows that, although the hardware is within the minimum requirements, Windows 8 has extremely high priority for user interface processes. Although, as seen by the benchmarks of P#1, the throughput is high (limited by the 100 Mbps connection), CPU intensive tasks are highly penalized. The reason P#2 is faster than on the Atom is only because it has more cores.
+HW#4 shows that, although the hardware is within the minimum requirements, Windows 8 has extremely high priority for user interface processes. As seen by the benchmarks of P#1, the throughput is high (limited by the 100 Mbps connection), but CPU intensive tasks are highly penalized. The reason P#2 is faster than on the Atom is only because it has more cores.
 HW#3 is a virtual machine with only 1 core dedicated to it. It has server grade hardware but runs along with other virtual machines pulling resources from it, namely disk access. However, since Linux is better suitable for web servers than desktop-oriented Windows, it's the fastest of them all.

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ===Notes===
-HW#1 is, as proven by the tests, highly discouraged. Its CPU is slow and doesn't even scale to the network speed. Also, usually these CPUs are accompanied with slow and unreliable hard drives.
+HW#1 is, as proven by the tests, highly discouraged. Its CPU is slow and doesn't even scale to the network speed. Also, usually these CPUs are used with slow and unreliable hard drives.
 HW#4 shows that, although the hardware is within the minimum requirements, Windows 8 has extremely high priority for user interface processes. Although, as seen by the benchmarks of P#1, the throughput is high (limited by the 100 Mbps connection), CPU intensive tasks are highly penalized. The reason P#2 is faster than on the Atom is only because it has more cores.
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 The P#2 test should look almost the same up until the number of threads are equal or smaller than the number of cores. For example, a 4 core CPU should handle P#2 more or less the same way as long as it has a dedicated core to each request (4 simultaneous requests in this case).
 ==Hardware==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 26 February 2013
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=Benchmarks=		=Benchmarks=
		+
		+	==Introduction==
		+
		+	These benchmarks serve as a reference to understand the implications certain types of hardware have in the Enterprise Web Server performance.
		+
		+	Each test runs on one project and consists of fetching that project with 1, 2, 5, 10 and 25 simultaneous threads, simulating simultaneous connections from players. The same test is done 2 times (tries) per hardware setup.
		+
		+	The values of each try shown in the table are measured in seconds. The average is shown in HH:MM:SS format.
		+
		+	Two projects were created with different characteristics. P#1 is a project with few but large files (videos). P#2, on the other hand, has very small files but in a large amount. P#1 is good to test the disk and bandwidth throughput. P#2 is heavier on the CPU because it processes a large amount of requests.
		+
		+	===Notes===
		+
		+	HW#1 is, as proven by the tests, highly discouraged. Its CPU is slow and doesn't even scale to the network speed. Also, usually these CPUs are accompanied with slow and unreliable hard drives.
		+
		+	HW#4 shows that, although the hardware is within the minimum requirements, Windows 8 has extremely high priority for user interface processes. Although, as seen by the benchmarks of P#1, the throughput is high (limited by the 100 Mbps connection), CPU intensive tasks are highly penalized. The reason P#2 is faster than on the Atom is only because it has more cores.
		+
		+	HW#3 is a virtual machine with only 1 core dedicated to it. It has server grade hardware but runs along with other virtual machines pulling resources from it, namely disk access. However, since Linux is better suitable for web servers than desktop-oriented Windows, it's the fastest of them all.
		+
		+	The P#2 test should look almost the same up until the number of threads are equal or smaller than the number of cores. For example, a 4 core CPU should handle P#2 more or less the same way as long as it has a dedicated core to each request (4 simultaneous requests in this case).
		+

	==Hardware==		==Hardware==

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 |CPU
 |Intel Core i3 or AMD equivalent
-|rowspan="4" | Server grade hardware
+|rowspan="3" | Server grade hardware
 |-
 |RAM
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 |OS
 |Linux or Microsoft Windows 7
 |}

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 !Component
 !Minimum
 |-
 |CPU
 |Intel Core i3 or AMD equivalent
 |-
 |RAM