Server Advice

kony wrote in
news
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.

You are exagerating my argument.

Hard disc fails Monday morning. OP is on vacation.

Power cut at weekend. Machine fails to boot at next switch on.

These things dont happen a lot. But they do happen. Or are you saying
that these things dont go wrong?

In a business context they can potentially cost money.

As you assert, it may be an acceptable risk for the business to deal
with a situation as it happens. It depends on why they want a "file
server" and how they plan to use it. Remember, we can **assume**, the
business has little in house skills to deal with things that we may
consider fairly trivial.

Please dont exaggerate what I say to add credance to your argument. It
doesnt interest me! And IMO reflects badly on you.

Lordy

kony wrote in news6pgr0pehhd3v8mjajr7jbenmvo192v3bu@
4ax.com:

Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things".

Presumably you have access to special hardware that doesnt fail?
Maybe a discless file server of some kind.

I just didnt think it would be necessary to qualify "things go wrong" with
someone who is entertaining a rational line of though. Sheesh.

Lordy

"kony" wrote in message ...
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.

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).

On 9 Dec 2004 16:36:16 GMT, Lordy wrote:

kony wrote in
news
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.

You are exagerating my argument.

Hard disc fails Monday morning. OP is on vacation.

Power cut at weekend. Machine fails to boot at next switch on.

These things dont happen a lot. But they do happen. Or are you saying
that these things dont go wrong?

I"m saying, that these things are independant, they are not
an argument for or against making a simple task as complex
as possible.


In a business context they can potentially cost money.

This is news? What bearing does that have, you seem to
imply that this is a factor, or rather, that there is a
decrease in the potential for this to happen. How, EXACTLY,
do you feel there will be decrease?


As you assert, it may be an acceptable risk for the business to deal
with a situation as it happens. It depends on why they want a "file
server" and how they plan to use it. Remember, we can **assume**, the
business has little in house skills to deal with things that we may
consider fairly trivial.

What in the world are you going on about?
Isn't that an argument for simplicity, focusing on these
risks instead of on (things not needed)?


Please dont exaggerate what I say to add credance to your argument. It
doesnt interest me! And IMO reflects badly on you.

Spare us the nonsense and come right out with your point.

On 9 Dec 2004 16:40:46 GMT, Lordy wrote:

kony wrote in news6pgr0pehhd3v8mjajr7jbenmvo192v3bu@
4ax.com:

Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things".

Presumably you have access to special hardware that doesnt fail?
Maybe a discless file server of some kind.

Perhaps you have some reason for pretending there is an
alternative?


I just didnt think it would be necessary to qualify "things go wrong" with
someone who is entertaining a rational line of though. Sheesh.

No, but you would need qualify how "things go wrong" is a
variable instead of a constant, and further, why introducing
greater complexity in areas OTHER than combating failure
points, is a positive thing for the aforementioned tasks.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:58:31 -0000, "recursor"
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.

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).


If it would do the job just as well then go right ahead...
otherwise let's focus on realistic solutions.

"kony" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:58:31 -0000, "recursor"
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.

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).


If it would do the job just as well then go right ahead...
otherwise let's focus on realistic solutions.

Well perhaps my posts have been frivolous but they didn't need to be much else, there have been some
*very* helpful posts in this thread, not least the one from paul andrews (9/12/04 8.45) at the
bottom of this thread which perfectly encapsulates a lot of the good advice that was given prior to
that. I hardly think your slagging off of most posts has helped the OP much.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:30:09 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:58:31 -0000, "recursor"
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.

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).


If it would do the job just as well then go right ahead...
otherwise let's focus on realistic solutions.

Well perhaps my posts have been frivolous but they didn't need to be much else, there have been some
*very* helpful posts in this thread, not least the one from paul andrews (9/12/04 8.45) at the
bottom of this thread which perfectly encapsulates a lot of the good advice that was given prior to
that. I hardly think your slagging off of most posts has helped the OP much.



Fortunately that doesn't change anything.
While there has been a lot of "good advice", I suspect the
OP was looking more for directions, the best thing to do to
meet the described goal. So far DETAILS towards that end
have been conspicuously missing from the thread. While it's
good advice to suggest seeking a supplier for server and
support, isn't that obvious enough, I mean, who doesn't know
they can plonk down cash and order a server from Dell et
al.? The OP's post tended to suggest another route was
desired.

"kony" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:30:09 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:
Fortunately that doesn't change anything.
While there has been a lot of "good advice", I suspect the
OP was looking more for directions, the best thing to do to
meet the described goal. So far DETAILS towards that end
have been conspicuously missing from the thread. While it's
good advice to suggest seeking a supplier for server and
support, isn't that obvious enough, I mean, who doesn't know
they can plonk down cash and order a server from Dell et
al.? The OP's post tended to suggest another route was
desired.

Since the OP didn't say how big or how often the files to be transferred are (and has not posted
since) it's amazing that you think *you* alone know what he needs.As other posters have said - he
wasn't very (if at all) specific about most of what any half thinking person would need to know to
accurately advise him about his requirements..
HTH

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:27:10 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:30:09 -0000, "recursor"
wrote:
Fortunately that doesn't change anything.
While there has been a lot of "good advice", I suspect the
OP was looking more for directions, the best thing to do to
meet the described goal. So far DETAILS towards that end
have been conspicuously missing from the thread. While it's
good advice to suggest seeking a supplier for server and
support, isn't that obvious enough, I mean, who doesn't know
they can plonk down cash and order a server from Dell et
al.? The OP's post tended to suggest another route was
desired.

Since the OP didn't say how big or how often the files to be transferred are (and has not posted
since) it's amazing that you think *you* alone know what he needs.As other posters have said - he
wasn't very (if at all) specific about most of what any half thinking person would need to know to
accurately advise him about his requirements..
HTH



.... and yet, you already implied overkill is a good idea for
6 clients. Thank goodness for Server 2003, until now we've
not be able to FTP or serve files, let there be light in
this new era!!!
LOL.