[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
M.Blackmore wrote:
>On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 14:06 +0100, Simon Williams wrote:
>
>
>>therwise IDE is fine. And
>>you will get no speed benefit whatsoever from SATA if you have to go
>>through a PCI controller. PCI is slow. Possibly slower than IDE.
>>
>>
>It's not quick, going through a PCI card, but its quite useable, even on
>a workstation which has got one in hanging off a card.
>
>Only reason I went sata when needing replacement disks and/or larger
>disks was to "future proof" for new motherboards later on, which will
>have native sata. I expect these disks to be in use for some 4-5 years
>or so given the average life I seem to get, and they will probably be
>swapped out into workstations as the central repository grows in
>capacity in time.
>
>
<snip>
With regards to a drive lasting 5 years, I'd go for the Seagate drives
as they have a 5 year warranty. If the drives don't last 5 years at
least you're covered in the event of a drive failure.
>I suspect I will continue to use an old P200-400 level with sata add on
>card for the duration as a rsync backup server ("backup" in inverteds,
>but tape kit costs too much for home use, so its the best low end
>solution to shove at the other end of the house hanging off a wire).
>
>I'd prefer to have only one 'pooter doing myth, samba,nfs,email to keep
>the lekky/CO2 costs as low as poss, so that will probably drive things
>to a higher spec to cover all the bases.
>
>Now, heading off a tangentially, what would I need to have one box do
>all that AND provide a remote x-windows to 3 or 4 terminals at once
>using ancient PCs/old laptops and be of solid performance?
>
>
>
Um... a very fast CPU with bags of memory?
There are some good deals on dual core Pentium D CPU's at the moment and
they have iAMD64 extensions too for 64-bitness. Or a fast Athlon 64
would probably do the job with support for cool & quiet which
dynamically slows the CPU down.
You can find the Pentium D 805 (2 x 2.66GHz with 2MB cache) at £85 on
eBuyer here: http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/107617/rb/19537839255
At that price I'm tempted for one myself, and I mainly use AMD CPU's.
>I wonder if its worth the cost of upgrading individual boxes not used
>for games but for basic stuff, when the dosh could be put into one
>seriously capable multicore beast with oodles of ram, and the remaining
>money put into some good monitors.
>
>
>
Not a bad idea. I did that for my kids computers. I setup an LTSP
server in the loft and used an old 450MHz iMac G3 and IBM P2-266 as
terminals. Fine for web browsing/e-mail etc but there were issues with
audio which I never did find a fix for.
>As a complete aside, can one serve up Win XP remotely like x-windows
>sessions or is that a non starter if one needs to use something under
>windows? Its not often, but when ya gotta have it ya gotta have it :-(
>
>
If you have a Windows XP Pro desktop PC you can connect to it from
another machine (be it Windows or Linux) but only one person can be
logged in at a time. For multiple users you'd need a Windows 2003
server. Alternative is trying to get the application running under WINE
or finding a Linux equivalent.
Or... thinking about it, there is always VNC server installed on a
Windows box. Can you think of examples of what you'd want to run on
Windows?
Rob
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html