>       Generally you are looking at configuration or network traffic 
>problems when they perform poorly. I'm willing to accept that there 
>are better rack mounted web servers out there. However, as a network 
>storage I have found that the NASRaQ can't be beat.
 
Thanx alot for your input. It is greatly valuable.

To clear things out a bit, we are heading for (at least) three new
investments and our company is a growing advertisement agency with print
and web in-house.

One or more common (generic) fileservers, an in-house webserver and a tape
drive to retrospect.

The NASRaQ was meant for filesharing and as I learn they seem fairly
outstanding when it comes to ease of use. No hot screens, nu dusty
keyboards etc.

Internet is different since we use alot of Microsofts's software in their
BackOffice suite, mainly ASP and Access connections. We're not
"microsofish" and I fear FrontPage... (I use DreamWeaver for ASP hacks.)

Well, if Apache have something similar to Microsofts technology maybe
Cobalts can be used for the web as well...

---

I have the feeling we're really close to an off topic thread here. If you
have an interresting answer but the thread is too far away from Retrospect,
please mail me in person, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

thanx,

/ jakob


--
----------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to