But like you said, it's all about choice.
On 8/4/06, deadhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
