yikes!! thats a *lo[t|g]* of questions.... i'll try to comment on a few...
1. i think the celeron would be too slow to be able to extract the performance (although i have *no* idea about the add-on card performance). 2. i dont presume ram should affect, if the system only does raid. although ofcourse ram gives better performance (but thats more of an obvious point. more ram ofcourse means better caching/performance etc..) 3. 100M cards.. hmm.. i think that equates to a ~10Mbyte/s (per interface) are you sure thats the performance you are aiming at? i mean, i agree burst speeds are relatively better, but for an average speed, i think this would be a bottleneck. 4. although i am unclear as to what is the effective purpose (dataset calculations ok, but basically is it scattered data, or backup sort of sequential data?) frankly, if heat is a trouble ( a single 40Gb 7200 rpm is giving me worries at home!) i think you could easily go for a 4800rpm (adding to which is cost savings). if ofcourse you are looking at scattered data, 7200 is the way to go. 5. i have found good data rates of about 1000kb/s on 10Mbps (compex etc) cards when transferring from linux-linux systems. (ofcourse win-linux are generally lower [win9x-linux are far lower than win2k-linux]), so i believe the low cost ones arent that bad for normal use. unless ofcourse you have a chance of data corruption (bad wiring, lot of disturbance etc...) 6. i used ext3 mainly because i didnt want to take a chance, and frankly i hadnt worked on anything else as yet (then). but i have heard good reviews (and dangerous warnings) about jfs and reiser... but i have no idea.. (sorry just adding up my experience..!) affly robins On Sun, 2003-07-06 at 22:35, Ambar Roy wrote: > Hi, _______________________________________________ ilugd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
