|
|
 | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) That summarizes it pretty well. SATA is something like five times cheaper per byte, and that's not even counting that we'd need a more expensive motherboard with a SCSI controller. Right now, disk isn't really the bottleneck for the load, so (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Yes, no one there to change tapes or CDs. The data will be frequently synced to off-site locations -- not just Todd's place. (...) What, planning for a nuclear calamity are you? :) (But yeah, we'll have that.) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Excellent point. Looks like there's three differentm steppings for this particular CPU model, and any of the first two can be mixed freely, but the third can't. I've messed with all this stuff before, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded of it, (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Matthew could answer this better than I, but my opinion is that the money is put to better use in ECC memory, and gobs of it. We're starting of with 1GB of RAM, upgradeable to 8GB. Since the OS automatically allocates unused RAM toward (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Nope, I hate tape backup (too slow, too small, too expensive, too unreliable) and CDR's are too small and too labor intensive. Of course, the lack of a CDRW drive doesn't preclude physical media backups from being carried out elsewhere. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
