|
|
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |CPU | | |CPU |
| − | |Intel Core i3 or AMD equivalent | + | |Intel Core i3 or AMD PC |
| − | |rowspan="3" | Server grade hardware | + | |rowspan="3" | Intel Xeon Server |
| | |- | | |- |
| | |RAM | | |RAM |
| 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. 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. 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. |
| − | | + | |
| − | =Benchmarks=
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Introduction==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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 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. 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.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| + | |
| − | !ID
| + | |
| − | !OS
| + | |
| − | !CPU
| + | |
| − | !RAM
| + | |
| − | !BW
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |HW#1
| + | |
| − | |Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 32 bit
| + | |
| − | |[http://ark.intel.com/products/49490 Intel D525 (Atom 1,8GHz)]
| + | |
| − | |2 GB
| + | |
| − | |1 Gbps
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |HW#2
| + | |
| − | |Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit
| + | |
| − | |[http://ark.intel.com/products/31733 Intel E2180 (Pentium 2 GHz)]
| + | |
| − | |1,5 GB
| + | |
| − | |1 Gbps
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |HW#3
| + | |
| − | |Debian Squeeze 64 bit
| + | |
| − | |[http://ark.intel.com/products/31733 Intel X5650 (Xeon 2,66 GHz) (1 Core, Virtual Machine)]
| + | |
| − | |1 GB
| + | |
| − | |100 Mbps
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |HW#4
| + | |
| − | |Microsoft Windows 8 64 bit
| + | |
| − | |[http://ark.intel.com/products/65693 Intel i3-3220 (Core i3 3.30 GHz)]
| + | |
| − | |2 GB
| + | |
| − | |100 Mbps
| + | |
| − | |}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Projects==
| + | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| + | |
| − | !ID
| + | |
| − | !Size
| + | |
| − | !No. of Files
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |P#1
| + | |
| − | |99,8 MB
| + | |
| − | |28
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |P#2
| + | |
| − | |12,9 MB
| + | |
| − | |336
| + | |
| − | |}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Data==
| + | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| + | |
| − | ! rowspan="2" colspan="2" | HARDWARE
| + | |
| − | ! colspan="5" | TEST PROJECT P#1
| + | |
| − | ! colspan="5" | TEST PROJECT P#2
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | !1
| + | |
| − | !2
| + | |
| − | !5
| + | |
| − | !10
| + | |
| − | !25
| + | |
| − | !1
| + | |
| − | !2
| + | |
| − | !5
| + | |
| − | !10
| + | |
| − | !25
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |rowspan="3" | HW#1
| + | |
| − | |Try #1
| + | |
| − | |55
| + | |
| − | |60
| + | |
| − | |109
| + | |
| − | |222
| + | |
| − | |555
| + | |
| − | |466
| + | |
| − | |510
| + | |
| − | |907
| + | |
| − | |1811
| + | |
| − | |4623
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Try #2
| + | |
| − | |56
| + | |
| − | |62
| + | |
| − | |116
| + | |
| − | |225
| + | |
| − | |566
| + | |
| − | |466
| + | |
| − | |510
| + | |
| − | |907
| + | |
| − | |1811
| + | |
| − | |4623
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Avg.
| + | |
| − | |00:00:56
| + | |
| − | |00:01:01
| + | |
| − | |00:01:53
| + | |
| − | |00:03:44
| + | |
| − | |00:09:21
| + | |
| − | |00:07:46
| + | |
| − | |00:08:30
| + | |
| − | |00:15:07
| + | |
| − | |00:30:11
| + | |
| − | |01:17:03
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |rowspan="3" | HW#2
| + | |
| − | |Try #1
| + | |
| − | |27
| + | |
| − | |33
| + | |
| − | |70
| + | |
| − | |135
| + | |
| − | |331
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Try #2
| + | |
| − | |25
| + | |
| − | |30
| + | |
| − | |71
| + | |
| − | |133
| + | |
| − | |347
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |N/A
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Avg.
| + | |
| − | |00:00:26
| + | |
| − | |00:00:32
| + | |
| − | |00:01:11
| + | |
| − | |00:02:14
| + | |
| − | |00:05:39
| + | |
| − | |00:00:00
| + | |
| − | |00:00:00
| + | |
| − | |00:00:00
| + | |
| − | |00:00:00
| + | |
| − | |00:00:00
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |rowspan="3" | HW#3
| + | |
| − | |Try #1
| + | |
| − | |15
| + | |
| − | |26
| + | |
| − | |62
| + | |
| − | |121
| + | |
| − | |296
| + | |
| − | |37
| + | |
| − | |39
| + | |
| − | |88
| + | |
| − | |180
| + | |
| − | |451
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Try #2
| + | |
| − | |16
| + | |
| − | |26
| + | |
| − | |63
| + | |
| − | |122
| + | |
| − | |300
| + | |
| − | |36
| + | |
| − | |40
| + | |
| − | |89
| + | |
| − | |180
| + | |
| − | |452
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Avg.
| + | |
| − | |00:00:16
| + | |
| − | |00:00:26
| + | |
| − | |00:01:03
| + | |
| − | |00:02:02
| + | |
| − | |00:04:58
| + | |
| − | |00:00:37
| + | |
| − | |00:00:40
| + | |
| − | |00:01:29
| + | |
| − | |00:03:00
| + | |
| − | |00:07:32
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |rowspan="3" | HW#4
| + | |
| − | |Try #1
| + | |
| − | |58
| + | |
| − | |63
| + | |
| − | |67
| + | |
| − | |152
| + | |
| − | |315
| + | |
| − | |428
| + | |
| − | |421
| + | |
| − | |459
| + | |
| − | |551
| + | |
| − | |924
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Try #2
| + | |
| − | |53
| + | |
| − | |62
| + | |
| − | |100
| + | |
| − | |167
| + | |
| − | |315
| + | |
| − | |437
| + | |
| − | |419
| + | |
| − | |447
| + | |
| − | |478
| + | |
| − | |626
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | |Avg.
| + | |
| − | |00:00:56
| + | |
| − | |00:01:03
| + | |
| − | |00:01:24
| + | |
| − | |00:02:40
| + | |
| − | |00:05:15
| + | |
| − | |00:07:13
| + | |
| − | |00:07:00
| + | |
| − | |00:07:33
| + | |
| − | |00:08:35
| + | |
| − | |00:12:55
| + | |
| − | |}
| + | |
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.
