If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new ! | vvcd | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | September 17th 04 09:07 PM |
Salvage Server Project | Ablang | General | 0 | July 27th 04 02:30 AM |
server requirements question | michel | General | 3 | July 12th 04 10:24 AM |
Rackmount server specifications | News | General | 0 | May 20th 04 06:16 AM |
server advice | YT | General | 1 | March 18th 04 07:11 PM |