Chris Hellyar wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 11:51 +1200, Roger Searle wrote: > >> Hi, I am purchasing some hardware for a server on a small network and am >> a little unclear on a couple of points. >> > > > >> It seems to be a popular suggestion in the windows world to NOT get 4GB >> of ram for a windows box due to the limitations in the ability of >> > > Just curious, what are you expecting to need 4Gb of ram for in a Linux > server anyway? Or is your definition of 'small network' 500 clients? > > Are you running compiere? Oracle? SAP? PeopleSoft? Something that > requires a sledgehammer? > > A mid spec P4 with 1Gb of ram and reasonable drive system will piss all > over basic file and print, and a simple intranet CMS for up to about 50 > PC's, or even 150-200 if they are not 'power' users. > > Specing a server is different to workstation. Once you can saturate the > network switch the only advantage you'll get from spending more money > is, well, spending more money! :-). > > Cheers, Me. > > Hi Me (thought for a moment that my boss had joined the list - that's her name too!)
Small in this case is 10 machines. No to any of the above sledgehammer-requiring databases. The thinking behind the question is: 1. I'm not clever enough with $DISTRO to manage one via a command line only so there will be X running 2. Everyone else here are windows users, some insist on outlook/exchange etc (though I have others quite happy with thunderbird & firefox), so there will be a virtual machine (or 2) also running on that box to support this and run the AV & spyware protection packages we have 3. RAM is so cheap these days. 4. An option is to make the new machine my workstation and current workstation becomes the server box 5. I was interested more generally in the question. 6. Machines here tend to go down through the food chain over their lifetime so there is a degree of future-proofing. Great question though - which prompts further consideration of what I'm doing, and I'm always open to further feedback or opinions. Though anything along the lines of getting others off MS programmes just isn't a go here . . . Roger
