Subject:
|
Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:28:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1404 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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.
Not to mention the fact that current IDE drives are just as reliable as SCSI.
SCSI is nice if you need maximum speed and can live with little storage space
(SCSI above 74 GB is rare still, IDE goes to 250GB easily
But the generated heat and noise, as well as cost are a big minus (2 SCSI disks
in a 1U server IMHO is pushing it in terms of heat, specially if it's an SMP
setup. Not to mention the blocking of air because of the SCSI cables, whereas
S-ATA has only two thin cables.
And all in all, glad to see so much care is being taken in setting up the new
stuff. BTW where can I find out more about BU-Linux details? Interested in what
you changed from stock RedHat distro's to see if there's anything interesting
which would apply to my systems :D
--
Jan-Albert van Ree
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Yeah, sorry, I wasn't saying I though that you should have gone the SCSI route (I thought my anecdotes would have showed that!) more that I thought it was interesting the move away from SCSI for custom built servers. A few years ago it would (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
| (...) Look at (URL). Although I need to update that page. Right now, our install server is way underpowered, but it should be getting upgraded sometime this spring (just in time for BU Linux 4.0, hopefully). Because of this, it's only available on (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
