Patrick Lauer wrote: > That's why you want a small local shop. They have a direct interest in > helping you - large suppliers usually don't care about people with one or two > boxen. > Also in my experience building yourself gives much better results. > Well I don't know what happen from your side of the atlantic, but here in italy if I have a support contract for same business day, if I call they come, for EVERY need.
And the big company assure a wider range of tests and an attention to construction quality that make the difference from an home made server and a IBM/HP/DELL machine. There are small companies that are focused on servers, but their prices aren't so different from $BIG_VENDORS ones > Nonsense ;-) > Linux software raid is as fast and easier to manage. Also SCSI is > expensive - for the price of two scsi disks and a controller I can get > a 6-disk software RAID5 that will most likely outperform it and has > about 10x the space. > For most uses el cheapo SATA will be better (but SCSI / SAS / > FibreChannel has its place) > Don't agree. RAID Linux could be a valid solution, is flexible , but it's not invisible, not OS indipendent and stress the CPU. The reason why I choose scsi is AFFIDABILITY. sata is pretty new , scsi is around since ages, it's bullet proof and outclass in performances a sata disk. Obviously it's not cheap but what I spend now in disks I will not spend after in time for changing broken disks and rebuilding arrays or worst in recovoring. It's all about choice, just like gentoo. > Split the disks - 2 for mail, 4 for fileserving or whatever. > That way there won't be much crosstalk between the applications (think > fileserving making mail crawl) > well if you use raid5, it's pretty hard to divide the work, anyway 4 disks and 2 RAID1 systems could be a nice solution > That's, obviously, just my opinion :-) > yes ;) more approches to a common problem... deadhead -- [email protected] mailing list
