Server Advice

In , on 12/09/04
at 03:19 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh said:

That's clear, but it's also why it's fun to try and work within the
meaning of the words...

Sure it is. And in a little while we'll both be flamed for straying
too much off-topic! ;-))


What about Virtual Reality hardware? Mmm, that doesn't really work, and
it'd probably be connected to a workstation class machine anyway.

That doesn't work. It's real hardware!


Oh, wait! Virtual Memory! Got it. All servers need some of _that_!

Bingo! I'll have to go stand in the corner! 8-(


Nelson

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelson M. G. Santiago
-----------------------------------------------------------

Today is Thu Dec 09, 2004.

As of 8:12am this OS/2 Warp 4 system has been up for 0 days, 20 hours, and
14 minutes. It's running 30 processes with 132 threads.

Trevor Best wrote:
Odie Ferrous wrote:
Trevor Best wrote:


Also it will allow you to set up a domain and manage users
centrally.

Who on earth would set up a domain for so few users?

domain = highly complex = serious support needed

I would, I do in fact have a domain set up and we have 6 people in our
company, and it's not that complex to do. We started out just wanting
a file server for simple file sharing and backup (does that sound
familiar?). When said server fills up and had no more room for
expansion a second one is required, etc. Then along comes the
requirement for company email. It's called expansion, we might not
have expanded the number of people in our company but we have
expanded our requirements on servers.

Bargain here - new Dell server for £99+VAT and P&P

http://configure.euro.dell.com/dells...sdftdppserver1

--
Please quote "easytiger" for your PlusNet referral :-)

On 9 Dec 2004 00:21:40 GMT, Lordy
wrote:

kony wrote in news:u24fr0li794b9eb75bothc38ia5tju6ovq@
4ax.com:

2) Everyone seems relatively
clueless about just how little it really takes to fileserve
2-6 clients. Excepting data backups (drive capacity), for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.


I think you've missed the point.


I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance. Taking an extreme for
simplicities' sake, lets suppose the thing runs from a 32MB
write-protected thumbdrive, loads a minimal version of linux
plus a 3Com NIC driver.... you could waltz over to any
system with 3Com NIC in it and boot to the thumb and presto,
you have yet another fileserver.

There really isn't any need to complicate a fileserver. You
might like to think there is, but truth be told even one of
the two desktops already running could be the fileserver
for the (up to 5 other) systems if it's not bogged down with
work already.

Granted, we dont' know the specific needs, it could easily
be important to have redundant PSU, ECC memory, mirroring
and a tape drive, etc... but the OP is certainly free to
spec these things and so far, hasn't.

kony wrote in news:j1hgr0pdqs0q7hme7lvplbq7g16ftd36sc@
4ax.com:

I think you've missed the point.


I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance.

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Lordy

"Lordy" wrote in message .. .
kony wrote in news:j1hgr0pdqs0q7hme7lvplbq7g16ftd36sc@
4ax.com:

I think you've missed the point.


I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance.

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Ask Amazon, they've been having mega problems lately, how stressed must their support guys be?

On 9 Dec 2004 14:01:19 GMT, Lordy wrote:

kony wrote in news:j1hgr0pdqs0q7hme7lvplbq7g16ftd36sc@
4ax.com:

I think you've missed the point.


I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance.

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Lordy


Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things". Heaping on dozens of times more potential for
things to go wrong is what should be avoided, not advised at
a significant cost overhead.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:33:23 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:


"Lordy" wrote in message .. .
kony wrote in news:j1hgr0pdqs0q7hme7lvplbq7g16ftd36sc@
4ax.com:

I think you've missed the point.


I think you're making points that apply to an ideal rather
than this real-world need as it's been described.

It's a catch-22, the more fancied up and sophisticated you
try to make it, the more of a need there will be for
"support" and maintenance.

The point is it doesnt matter how simple the technology is. Its the cost to
the business and the OP if things go wrong. And things do go wrong from
time to time.

Ask Amazon, they've been having mega problems lately, how stressed must their support guys be?



What does that have to do with 6 client filesharing?
Perhaps Amazon has fallen into the same trap, being deluded
into a config so excessive that it's now unmanageable.

"kony" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:25:11 +0000, Trevor Best
wrote:

SNIP
for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.

Gasp indeed.....You just qualified for the "silly post of the week" award.

I agree, but in most cases the problem is relatively minor and can be
repaired by the technician. Our first compaq server required an onsite
technician. He replaced the motherboard and raid controller, we were up and
running in a matter of hours. So I have no complaints about the quality of
service.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:40:26 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:25:11 +0000, Trevor Best
wrote:

SNIP
for
all we know the job could be handled fine by a 486 box
fished out of a dumpster and running win3.1 or (gasp) DOS.

Gasp indeed.....You just qualified for the "silly post of the week" award.


I'm sorry, I forgot that nobody knows how to do anything
besides click a mouse anymore.