Best drive configuration?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:41:04 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


Why do I want to put all that horsepower into a server that see's little
use?

...and it was more sarcasm than a question. : )


But it is a good question, since a P200, 64MB of memory, and Linux is all
you probably need.

You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the
server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

Servers don't run programs (unless they are scripts on webpages, or services
such an POP3 or HTTP, etc.). They just hold the files that get loaded by the
client machines.

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.

Your talking about Terminal Server. That runs everything on the server and
just draws the screen over the network... Not very efficient really.

kony wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:41:04 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:


Why do I want to put all that horsepower into a server that see's little
use?

...and it was more sarcasm than a question. : )


But it is a good question, since a P200, 64MB of memory, and Linux is all
you probably need.

My "server" is a pentium 233 128Mb running linux and it's fine. It's
faster than a 10/100 nic card! :-)
--

Stacey

Trent© wrote:



Seriously...am I missing something here?

Yes. You don't know what a server is.


You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the
server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

?? What kind of server nowadays does that?


I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.


Like who runs a "real server" that the programs run from them to a terminal?
You're talking about "main frame" setups from 30 years ago.. Either machine
is going to be MUCH faster than trying to run software over a 10/100
network, if you had ever done this you'd know that. Now maybe if one of the
machines was a 486...

I set up a virtual desktop on my pentium 133 laptop to use a 2.8C P4
downstairs to see what kind of speed increase I could get, just passing the
desktop/video over a 10/100 network was slower than the P133 runs by
itself.
--

Stacey

On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:34:30 -0400, Trent©
wrote:


I don't know. ALL of them? Again, that's why I asked. My server
holds the programs...and my other machines run the programs from that
server.

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.


Like who runs a "real server" that the programs run from them to a terminal?

Me. lol

And many others, I would guess.

You're talking about simply having the program files on the server but
still it's just a file server, right? The server isn't actually RUNNING
the application, it's just serving the application files.

As for who would run a server OS, that's a very good question... mostly
those who want to finance Microsoft and follow their EULA... of course
there are differences in priority of services by default and number of
connections, but for the most part it's all just a joke, a fileserver can
run a free OS distro from a floppy disk and serve up apps or whatever for
the basic uses described.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 11:51:35 -0400, Trent©
wrote:


Your talking about Terminal Server. That runs everything on the server and
just draws the screen over the network... Not very efficient really.

4 gig or so of RAM on the fastest CPU seems like a pretty efficient
idea to me.


It is not efficient because of the LAN speed limitation and the modern
higher-res full color screens. A lot of memory may help, but only to a
point, mostly if GbE is used.

"Trent©" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:43:06 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Trent© wrote:



Seriously...am I missing something here?

Yes. You don't know what a server is.

Well...I think I DO. Obviously, I have a different definition than
Noozer. Usually, a server holds the program...so that many different
locations can share the files and work with them simultaneously.

....and programs just are files.

When you run one of the programs that are on your server, it copies over the
network to your client PC's memory and executes, just as if it had loaded
from it's local hard drive. It still runs on the client computer using it's
CPU and memory. The server just sits idle.

He did say he was running server software on it. That's what made me
think it was going to be a true server...not just a primary machine
and a secondary machine.

Server software - serving webpages and email. This actually runs on the
server itself. Very low power uses unless you have a very popular site.

A server is anything that client PC's connect to. Even Kazaa (blech) is a
server. Put it in your PC (NOT suggested) and now you are a server of sorts.

I don't know. ALL of them? Again, that's why I asked. My server
holds the programs...and my other machines run the programs from that
server.

Almost none of them. The few systems out there that still work this way are
old VAX systems or Terminal Server systems. I can't even think of anyone I
know doing this over Xserver on *nix.

I'm getting the impression that the 'server' really isn't gonna be a
real server. It seems like yer REALLY gonna run the programs from the
nodes...and not from the server at all.


Like who runs a "real server" that the programs run from them to a
terminal?

Me. lol

So, you open a terminal program on your computer and all that transfers
between your PC and the server is the screen info? Anything else and you're
doing the same as everyone else - just using the server to hold files.

And many others, I would guess.

Nobody I know, with the exception of those who manage their servers through
TELNET or Terminal Services.

Trent© wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 05:54:49 GMT, "Noozer" wrote:

You said yer gonna use it as a server. Why wouldn't you make the
server the fastest machine in the system...since its gonna run the
programs for all the nodes?

Servers don't run programs (unless they are scripts on webpages, or
services such an POP3 or HTTP, etc.). They just hold the files that get
loaded by the client machines.

I run most of my programs from my server.



Clueless...
--

Stacey

Noozer wrote:


"Trent©" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:43:06 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Trent© wrote:



Seriously...am I missing something here?

Yes. You don't know what a server is.

Well...I think I DO. Obviously, I have a different definition than
Noozer. Usually, a server holds the program...so that many different
locations can share the files and work with them simultaneously.

...and programs just are files.

When you run one of the programs that are on your server, it copies over
the network to your client PC's memory and executes, just as if it had
loaded from it's local hard drive. It still runs on the client computer
using it's CPU and memory. The server just sits idle.

And the network is slower than the HD interface so that just slows the node
machines down.


He doesn't understand what's happening, but then again this is the same
person who believes a CPU can be too cool to be efficient.
--

Stacey

Trent© wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:43:06 -0400, Stacey wrote:

I set up a virtual desktop on my pentium 133 laptop to use a 2.8C P4
downstairs to see what kind of speed increase I could get, just passing
the desktop/video over a 10/100 network was slower than the P133 runs by
itself.

I'm not sure what point yer tryin' to make here.



Because you don't realize that you ARE running the application on the node,
not the server even if the software is loaded on the servers HD. The actual
application isn't running on the server. To do otherwise, you'd have to be
serving the video over the network which is MUCH slower than even a pentium
class machine.

--

Stacey