Bob La Quey wrote:
How about four of these:
Basically anything commodity is going to work. Personally, I go for
cores over frequency nowadays. Most development is constrained by
getting source code off the disk rather than CPU power.
Carl's comment about Buffalo Linkstation is mark-on; I own one. I am
very happy with it at home. However, it would be far too slow for a
development environment. I have heard similar complaints about the
Terastations. I have heard similar complaints about other consumer
NAS's. Remember, these are targeted at *Windows* people who are used to
slow and crappy networking. They all tend to be based on ARM boards and
don't have a lot of CPU horsepower. Mine can move 100Megabits in Samba,
but drops to 10Megabits over sshfs.
The only other thing I would ask is: Do you really want a NAS?
My personal opinion is that development machines should share code via
the source code control system rather than a network filesystem.
With Subversion and Mercurial available and functional on Linux and
Windows, I much prefer to use them. It also gets the developers in the
habit of rebuilding via the build system from scratch rather than
storing all the little dependencies locally.
Since you're going to need a source code server *anyhow*, you might as
well park the disks in a real Linux box rather than a NAS. It will
perform *much* better and give your far more options when disk space
runs out.
Software RAID on Linux used to suck, but it has gotten *much* better.
Of course, if you *really* want stellar software RAID, put Solaris 10 on
one of you boxes and run ZFS.
Your NAS decision is probably the only thing I would think a bit about.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
