Don't take this the wrong way, but quite frankly you're wasting a huge amount of money on having dual processors. Especially Xeon based. Minecraft is, inherently, single-threaded. Even with bukkit, you'll only see 1 or 2 extra thread spawn for the few plugins that support them. The best setup is a single, quad-core proc with the highest clock rate you can get. 64G of memory is also painfully overkill. 32G would (and will) support up to 200 players on a server at any given time. With your new server, you'll see the ability to hold about 80-90 people online before you start seeing a collapse of your TPS (Ticks Per Second - you want 20/sec!). I'd be surprised if you're spending less than 600/month for this new beast. About 400-450 more than you, realistically, need to. You want clock speed more than number of processors/cores available. I run a server at work that has 196G of memory.
I don't believe that minecraft will be the other thing this server will be running so it's a great investment for more projects that the future will hold.
You are correct on all of this. The main thread for Minecraft is single threaded, and does not support multiple threads (yet). We do have other very CPU heavy processes that run on multiple threads, such as all the live map generation (no GPU). Additonaly the GC in Java can use multiple threads, and as with any high memory Java app (especially one that is poorly coded), garbage collection becomes very costly. That is the trade off for the developers not to have to worry about memory management. But yes even then this physical server would be overkill, if you assumed it was only going to run a single instance of a Minecraft server You don't scale for today, you scale for tomorrow
Yea, now it getting into the terrabytes, im just waiting for the yota bytes and even the zotabytes! XD
Intel i7 Quad Core 3.4GHz (8mb L3 cache, 5 GT/s FSB) 16GB DDR3-1333 250 GB SATA HDD (7200 RPM) 40GB Intel X25-V SSD CentOS 5.6 64-bit nevermind my last question, it has to be duel. Looking at the CPU specs it must be the i7 950 in which case.,.. you had the ram all wrong. EDIT AGAIN.. it could have been the 2600K, my bad. then the ram was fine.
Oh yeah lol, I thought they were suspiciously close. I also wondered why you were running Cent for a workstation lol