On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:31:11 +0000, Trevor Best
wrote:


So you're just trolling now?
... or were you suggesting the diskless fileserver?

Re-read thread for why this comment was made. I'm not going to rehash it
here!


I'm up to speed, but you are just trolling, right?

Hard drives fail in workstations. It's a risk.
Hard drives fail in servers. It's a risk.

People generally throw money at file servers, e.g. RAID to minimise the
impact of such a failure, with RAID you'll either get fault tolerance
(hot swap, very expensive) or high availability (require a shutdown
period to replace faulty disk with no loss of data).

If you don't "complicate" a file server in this way then you stand to
lose all data since last backup when a hard drive fails.

yes I'm familiar with raid, and haven't argued against it.
If that's what "Lordy" thought I was arguing against then
perhaps Lordy should've been a bit more expressive and the
sub-topic could've been addressed.