Ryu Connor wrote:
Great link, not sure how I missed that one.
I tend to err on the side of reliability with VM Monsters, which means e-peen will suffer. But, you know, after a bigger e-peen machine gets tired, you, uh, keep chugging along. Ahem.
Indeed. Slow and steady, but utterly reliable to perform on command!
At a certain point, as JBI pointed out, there will be other considerations for the whole system. I'm finding RAM capacity doesn't have as much to do with performance as plain old storage capacity. With a lot of VM's, VHD and VHDx storage becomes an issue, and if you're going to SAN the VHDs, then network bandwidth becomes an issue. I'm leaning towards local/RAID storage for VHD in the next round of our VM Monster upgrade. In 2020, when we'll have budget.
I don't expect to use a SAN with this system, although who knows what the tech tradeoffs will be by the time I pull the trigger. The plan is just to try to get as much internal bandwidth as possible to the disk subsystem(s) and rely on RAM to cache/accelerate.
either way i dont think the performance difference from 1600 - 1866 is worth the hassle in most cases and if the memory does only run at 1600 i dont think it would be all much much difference performance wise (reviews of memory intensive programs that i have seen doesnt show much difference between 1600 and even 2133)
edit: this only applies to x79 and the memory controller on i7 cpu's as i have one and have screwed around with it alot (i have had memory overclocked to 2600 and oc'd the cpu to 5ghz) as far as xeons go they are a different thing altogether and i dont think you will be able to run anything other than officially supported speeds
Right -- I don't plan to overclock this rig at all. The main thing I'm wondering is about whether the money to get 1866 (or whatever the "max" non-OC number is for a mobo) would be flat-out wasted if the system infrastructure wouldn't even try to use the extra speed.
Great doc -- I was getting confused looking a the QVLs for the high-end motherboard since they kept showing the "ranks" for the DIMMs -- something I've never heard of, and something I assume consumer-grade RAM never has to deal with (?) since it's a Xeon thing.
The fact that it's processor-dependent and not really chipset- or motherboard- dependent is also interesting -- I thought it might have been a motherboard quality thing. That simplifies it down quite a bit.
Great answers everyone, I very much appreciate the info and links. Thanks!