Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:05:37 -0800 (PST) From: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, noslenj@swbell.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dual 400 -> dual 600 worth it? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912140500210.34286-100000@moo.sysabend.org> In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.19991213220839.00c869e0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Brett Glass wrote: :Also, putting that much disk space on a single machine may not be a good idea. :If it has that much data to serve up or search, it's probably going to be :strapped for CPU cycles or network bandwidth. Depending on the situation, :you might be better off distributing your files or databases and putting several :disks (but not hundreds) on each server. This makes the system more failsafe, :too: one bad CPU won't take down the whole operation. Can I point out that the PC isn't the only platform on the planet? When I was at NASA 16 processor (or more) Origin2000's and Sun Enterprise servers with anywhere from 200GB to 1TB+ drive arrays on them were quite common. Eventually PC's won't be single processor toys. Hell, you can build dual CPU boxes now for less than a 286 cost 10 years ago. Any spec you come up with better be scalable, and not ignore multi cpu configurations. Jamie Bowden -- "Of course, that's sort of like asking how other than Marketing, how Microsoft is different from any other software company..." Kenneth G. Cavness To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9912140500210.34286-100000>