# Performance



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

One of the clients I support has a Microsoft SBS 2003 server which runs Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, file and print and ISA 2004. They run it on an HP DL380 G5 which has 4GB RAM and dual Xeon 2Ghz CPUs and SAS disks on a P400 controller (I think they 10k RPM). The hardware is great but the performance is miserable on the software side (this isn't a MS vs BSD argument!). It takes 10 minutes to reboot the box. Currently the server supports 35 users.

What I want to know is what kind of hardware could I replace their existing server with if I was to run FreeBSD, Postfix, MySQL, Squid, Samba, PF etc?

At home I run all of this on an HP dc7100 desktop (P4 2.8Ghz, 1GB RAM and 80GB SATA drive) and its quick but I am the only user. Heres a brave/cheeky question, could this desktop (with FreeBSD, Postfix etc installed) match the powerful G5 server with SBS 2003? Lets ignore things like redundant power supplies, hot pluggable drives etc. I am purely interested in the performance for this particular company.

This may seem like a silly question but I am really keen to find out the power of FreeBSD on lower end equipment compared to more expensive conventional hardware most companies purchase.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

Maybe a bit more RAM, but the desktop you describe should easily be able to handle that, and more.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Thats just damn amazing.

What if I put 2GB RAM in the desktop, would that match the G5?


----------



## SirDice (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> One of the clients I support has a Microsoft SBS 2003 server which runs Exchange 2003, SQL 2005, file and print and ISA 2004. They run it on an HP DL380 G5 which has 4GB RAM and dual Xeon 2Ghz CPUs and SAS disks on a P400 controller (I think they 10k RPM). The hardware is great but the performance is miserable on the software side (this isn't a MS vs BSD argument!). It takes 10 minutes to reboot the box. Currently the server supports 35 users.


Stick more memory in it. Exchange and SQL are really big memory users. Also, the time it takes to reboot a machine has pretty much nothing to do with it's performance. You have to take into account that SCSI (and SAS) controllers take a long time to initialize.

You may want to run performance monitor to see where your real bottlenecks are.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Thanks but its a known ummm "feature" with SBS server for taking so long to reboot. It takes ages to shutdown the Exchange services and then let the box reboot. If you don't shutdown the Exchange services BEFORE rebooting it can take up to an hour to reboot. It has nothing to do with the hardware, just the way the software works.

I am more keen on comparing my little desktop to the G5 with the equivalent FreeBSD services running on it.

Sounds like I could replace a G5 with a tiny little dc7100 HP desktop if I add a bit more RAM to it!!

This is all hypothetical of course. I'm just really curious to know the power of FreeBSD..


----------



## SirDice (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> It takes ages to shutdown the Exchange services and then let the box reboot. If you don't shutdown the Exchange services BEFORE rebooting it can take up to an hour to reboot. It has nothing to do with the hardware, just the way the software works.


True, Exchange can be a real biatch x(

Speaking of Exchange, it's the only real problem I see with your 'hypothetical' replacement. AFAIK there's nothing[*] that comes anywhere close to it. Sure you can have a great mailserver but getting the agenda functionality working will be somewhat problematic.


[*] Open source that is. Sure Lotus Notes is a great replacement (in some views even a whole lot better) but it's not open source.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

But from a hardware point of view the desktop would cope (with 2GB RAM)?

Are you saying the Postfix doesn't have all the functionality of Exchange?

I just find it incredible that a 5 year old desktop with a Pentium 4 CPU could potentially replace the DL380 G5...I am still in shock!


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

Postfix is only an smtp server. You'll need something for IMAP/POP3 (like Dovecot), or addressbook functionality (LDAP), but the calendar/appointment stuff will be problematic. Zimbra isn't quite there yet, I believe.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Sorry I forgot to mention IMAP (I use Courier IMAP with SSL).

I haven't done addressbook functionality yet so I must look into that. How does that tie in with LDAP?

I have never heard of Zimbra so I'll look into it.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

Exchange uses Active Directory, which in the open source world has its equivalent in OpenLDAP. AD records can be exported to OpenLDAP and used in the same way by e.g. email applications. Oh, there's also mail/evolution, by the way.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

So OpenLDAP plus Courier IMAP = Exchange/Active Directory?

If I *didn't* want to import AD records into OpenLDAP could I still use it by creating my own users? Are these standard FreeBSD users that OpenLDAP queries?


----------



## SirDice (Aug 3, 2009)

Active Directory is more or less DDNS+LDAP+Kerberos.

Exchange uses LDAP to lookup users (addressbook) but also SMTP/POP3/IMAP (and it's own proprietary protocol) and it has provisions for calenders.


----------



## aragon (Aug 3, 2009)

Zimbra is dog slow, but it's probably faster than Exchange and SBS.

Your desktop system will work fine and will be _much_ faster than the exchange system (fewer features though).  Your current RAM will be plenty if you don't run Squid.  Squid is probably the most RAM hungry app in your list, and I'm not sure it's worth it for only 35 users.

To partially fill in the missing features, add dovecot, openldap, and apache with DAV enabled.  Together those will get you IMAP, shared address book, and basic calendaring.  Feature wise it won't be on par with exchange or Zimbra, but it'll be a helluva lot faster and simpler.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 3, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> but it'll be a helluva lot faster and simpler.


Simpler for whom?  
Sure the admins will love it. But I'm not sure if users (who have been using outlook/exchange for the past decade) will find it 'simpler' :e


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Can't you limit the amount of RAM Squid uses? Considering how cheap RAM is I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade the desktops RAM to 2GB or even 4GB (maxing it out on 32bit).

I'm still not sure I fully understand OpenLDAP. Is it used to query FreeBSD users email addresses and provide an Exchange like GAL (Global Address List)?

I understand that FreeBSD with all the server components installed wouldn't have ALL of the features SBS 2003 has but it comes pretty darn close...and its free! Faster! More secure and stable!


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

If you decide on actually replacing Exchange with an open source equivalent/alternative, you will always end up with a host of separate applications. There is no all-in-one application like it (which is also why it is such an obscene monstrosity that it is actually inviting asteroids to come visit us due to its gravity -- stretching all the way to the Kuiper Belt). 

Lots of network applications speak LDAP, and shared calendars are also available in several shapes and forms (like a Squirrelmail plugin, to name just one). 

The greatest challenge for any company trying to move away from Exchange is usually: "How on earth are we going to tie this wide array of applications together and make it work?". It tends to end with permanent holidays for several people, and an order for new licenses from Redmond, WA.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure I fully understand OpenLDAP. Is it used to query FreeBSD users email addresses and provide an Exchange like GAL (Global Address List)?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openldap and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LDAP_software should answer most questions.


----------



## aragon (Aug 3, 2009)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Simpler for whom?
> Sure the admins will love it. But I'm not sure if users (who have been using outlook/exchange for the past decade) will find it 'simpler' :e


Fair point, but I don't think it'll be _that_ much more complex for users.  They will have to ween themselves off Outlook, but I honestly feel that's a good thing!  Or maybe I underestimate users? 

One problem with using standard protocols is that Outlook simply doesn't play along.  Its IMAP support is crippled, and I doubt it supports iCal and DAV (needed for calendaring).  I really recommend Thunderbird with the Lightning plugin.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

As a newbie I am finding the learning curve almost vertical in the beginning just getting to grips with all the various components and how they relate to each other and integrate with each other.

Luckily the book "Building a Server with FreeBSD 7 A Modular Approach" has helped me immensely and this forum.

I hear what you saying DutchDaemon re Exchange. Is this the only server type product that FreeBSD battles to replace?

Can FreeBSD run an Active Directory like environment with Group Policies? For Windows clients? Can FreeBSD manage Linux/BSD clients?

I guess most companies will never be able to FULLY migrate away from MS until some kick ass replacement comes from the open source community for (say) Exchange.


----------



## aragon (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> Can't you limit the amount of RAM Squid uses? Considering how cheap RAM is I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade the desktops RAM to 2GB or even 4GB (maxing it out on 32bit).


Yes.  The size of your cache store directly influences your RAM usage.  Reduce that and you'll reduce the RAM squid consumes.



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> I'm still not sure I fully understand OpenLDAP. Is it used to query FreeBSD users email addresses and provide an Exchange like GAL (Global Address List)?


Maybe you should play with LDAP first.  It's probably going to be the most mind bending part of migrating.  LDAP is an odd protocol with which getting one's hands dirty is not for the faint at heart. 



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> I understand that FreeBSD with all the server components installed wouldn't have ALL of the features SBS 2003 has but it comes pretty darn close...and its free! Faster! More secure and stable!


It is all that, but hopefully that will be enough to satisfy your users with it not being Exchange and Outlook.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

FreeBSD is almost blind to anything Microsoft does. It does its own development and allows software developers to use FreeBSD as a platform. None of the software discussed in this thread has anything to do with FreeBSD itself. In other words: FreeBSD doesn't battle to replace anything. That's a different OS you're thinking about ..


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> Maybe you should play with LDAP first.  It's probably going to be the most mind bending part of migrating.  LDAP is an odd protocol with which getting one's hands dirty is not for the faint at heart.



It actually makes me nauseous and wanting to move to Bora-Bora every time. Hell, I'd move to _Tora_-Bora to avoid it. Yikes.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Good point DutchDaemon.

FreeBSD is independent and not worried about what anyone else is doing which I like.

Use FreeBSD. Don't use it. You are FREE to choose. Thats why I dig it.


----------



## morbit (Aug 3, 2009)

> I just find it incredible that a 5 year old desktop with a Pentium 4 CPU could potentially replace the DL380 G5...I am still in shock!




In my opinion nothing can substitute raw processing and I/O power. Unless you really don't need all power of G5..


----------



## aragon (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> I hear what you saying DutchDaemon re Exchange. Is this the only server type product that FreeBSD battles to replace?


Well no.  Any system will struggle to replace another closed, proprietary system.  Such is the nature of proprietary software.  The only way to make migrations easier is to use only open, standard systems.



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> Can FreeBSD run an Active Directory like environment with Group Policies? For Windows clients?


I don't think so, but Samba can come close.



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> Can FreeBSD manage Linux/BSD clients?


I've never used either, but Kerberos and/or NIS are what you should look into for that.



			
				xy16644 said:
			
		

> I guess most companies will never be able to FULLY migrate away from MS until some kick ass replacement comes from the open source community for (say) Exchange.


Zimbra is probably the closest to that.  Unfortunately it's not that great (IMHO).


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

xy16644, not exactly sure what's wrong with your connection or web browser, but I've deleted three double posts from you in this thread already ...


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Thats true morbit. They dont fully utilise the G5 at all. It sits there idle most of the day. SQL gobbles up a fair amount of RAM (I have limited it to 1 or 2GB I think) but they dont NEED a G5. Thats what got me thinking about the desktop replacement "dream" (lol). 

The fact that this is even remotely possible blows my mind as normally we always sell clients bigger more expensive servers and more software licenses. Along comes a free OS that can handle 90%+ of the features of the SBS 2003 server...wow...I need to let this sink it.

Its a complete change in the way I think about upgrades and hardware/software...

** Sorry about double posts...I think that was me being overeager! **


----------



## SirDice (Aug 3, 2009)

Even though you have a point regarding the "power" of the server also think about things like hardware support. And I don't mean drivers, I mean when things break. The bigger (and more expensive) hardware usually has better components (quality) and depending on which model it might even have things like dual power supplies, dual everything. 

SBS is just a neat "little" package that has pretty much everything, it's great for small to medium sized companies. But I wouldn't touch SBS with a ten foot pole. Not that I wouldn't use Windows, I'd just split all that functionality up and move each to it's own server.

The fun part is you could run a different OS on that same hardware, it doesn't have to be a Windows box. As long as it provides the functionality the users need it really doesn't matter what it runs.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

I think SBS is good value for money for a small business but I absolutely can't stand it to be honest!!!

I'd love to see FreeBSD run on a G5...


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

I'm running FreeBSD on several DL380 machines (still G3 and G4, I believe, mostly busy firewall/proxy servers), and I can tell you: it flies.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

Thats excellent!

Does FreeBSD work fine with all the hardware in a DL380? Controller cards, NICs, etc


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

Haven't had any problems with any of it, though I'm talking about slightly older hardware (HP Smart Array 6i, HP NC7782 Gigabit nic, Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz, etc.). ACPI, SMP, Raid, all ok.

There are 2 older DL380s somewhere (dual core, 15K disks added) running about 150 concurrent Squid users both, at a load of about 0.6 - 0.7. Also a new HP consumer-class desktop with two fiber NICs in bridge mode, easily handling 150+ Mbit/sec throughput, with a whopping 50,000+ established states, at a load of < 0.1.

Nice workhorses.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 3, 2009)

I am tempted to grab the DL380 G3 I am about to decommission. Only problem is paying the electric bill with one of those ;-)

I still haven't quite grasped the load figures when running top. If you server is running at 0.6 does this mean its running at 60% utilisation? I'm sure I've seen mine go to 2.0 or higher when installing ports. Does 2.0 = 200% ?! Bit confusing. I did read about it in the book Absolute FreeBSD but the author didn't offer much of an explanation...


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 3, 2009)

Ideally, you can go up to a sustained load of 1.00 per core. So a load of 2 on a dual-core is fine, though if it goes up to more than 2, you won't notice any problems. It just means that a process has to wait for 'attention from the system' (cpu, disk, ram -- it is a combined value) for a few nano/micro/milliseconds longer. I've seen peak loads in the double digits that didn't bog a server down one bit.


----------



## aragon (Aug 3, 2009)

Load is a number that refers to how many processes are waiting in the run queue.  It doesn't relate precisely to CPU utilisation.

I find most hardware today way overpowered for server use.  There are obviously exceptions, but when it comes to setting up a mail/gateway server for a small-medium sized LAN, a modern Core 2 Duo or Xeon will spend most of its life idling.  An awful waste if you ask me.  I've started using Intel Atom based systems.  They're about as powerful as a high end Pentium 3, but can take upto 2 GB of RAM, draw less than 30 Watts, and can be mounted into a quarter depth 1U case!


----------



## SirDice (Aug 4, 2009)

Most server hardware seems to idle 80% of the time. Which is why a lot of companies are consolidating their server hardware and have started to use VMWare (and vmware like products). That way you get more bang for your buck, less iron but still running the same services at a fraction of the costs.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 4, 2009)

Thanks for that DutchDaemon. So I have a Pentium 4 HT CPU which has two cores so I can comfortably go up to 2 and there will be no waiting for processes. Anything over and there could be a delay for processes. When I installed the MySQL port, that really hammered the system (about 3 I think)  but I could still use it in another SSH session and browse the server via https with no problem.

Thanks for the pic aragon. I have been thinking about the electricty useage of running my little desktop server 24x7 here as electricity is expensive! Its only got a 240 watt power supply so hopefully it doesnt cost TOO much to run all day ;-)

Theres this guy I sometimes have to work with from another company and he is always grabbing old desktop equipment from clients (kind of like what I am running FreeBSD on). I could never figure out WHY he wanted such "crap" hardware but now I get it, put FreeBSD on it!!


----------



## morbit (Aug 4, 2009)

> Its only got a 240 watt power supply



Check it twice. It may be not up to task of running 24/7. Check real power draw under load, PSU power rating has nothing to do with total power consumption.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 4, 2009)

xy16644 said:
			
		

> So I have a Pentium 4 HT CPU which has two cores {...}


Err... Not quite. A P4 HT is capable of running 2 threads (hyper threading) but it has a single core.


----------



## xy16644 (Aug 4, 2009)

I must be thinking of the other HP vPro machine I have. Thats a dual core.


----------

