begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:07:41PM -0800: > Neil Schneider wrote: > > >I wish more people would participate in the discussion. I don't think > >we need to rush, but sometime in the next month would probably be a > >good time for coming to a consensus. > > I agree. A little more participation would be nice. Heh.
Have we run any profiling tools on the existing server to determine where the real bottlenecks are, rather than speculating? In general, oodles of ECC RAM and good I/O between it and the processor are where I'd tend to prefer to emphasis be placed. I haven't found any discussion about if SATA is as good as low-processor-impact as SCSI, although Tracy and I discussed CTQ and NTQ (?) on the channel the other day for a bit. > However, I'm going to apply the old doctrine "Silence gives consent." Indeed. A new server would be okay. What are our funds like? Going uber-cheap-but-better-than-what-we-have-now is nice, and spending decent money for a really good machine is nice; I'm not so much happy with a middle-of-the-road approach, however. Unlike James, I might be happier with $2k spent on a server than $1k. > In addition, if people aren't willing to talk about it beforehand, I'm > going to be pretty vocal about ignoring their complaints after a > decision is made. The current server is slow enough to where I don't consider it useful[1], so I haven't hit the KPLUG website in ages. So long as the replacement is *better* (in performance and at least as good in stability) I will make no complaints. [1] No idea if this is a processor, bus, disk, or software problem. -- Being uninformed as I am, I will respond to your solicitation. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
