bad english on my part. Trying to inpress with my jargon isnt smart..
You are right, I just lashed against something I see very offten: people spec "best of breed" items to cover up their ass, instead of stop and think what is enough for the issue.
I havens so ffing often in IT, I think it symptomatic for IT.
To answer your question anyway, I have used 1U machines, with server and desktop components are mixed to keep price low. Xeons with SATA f.e. They have done well for me.
Another example: why would I give my non-fileserver DC scsi? For the measy DC lookups a fast disk is overkill...
************************************************Fair point with the assholes and opinion.
But potentially that system you've described is not 'subpar'. Why have you specified server hardware and not lashed together a normal PC with bits from your local PC store? It's server standard hardware, with a warranty, you've mirrored the drives.
My argument against the the 'subpar' was that, to me it is short sighted to specifically design a solution that you expect to underachieve. If a box is not intended to be highly stressed, maybe you don't need the second processor, maybe some less memory, and maybe slower drives - but that box should still deliver good performance and relibability for the requirements of the users - the goal should never be 'subpar'.
-----Original Message----- From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of richard van beers Sent: 03 October 2006 11:39 To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [THIN] Re: SATA drives
Everyone has assholes and opinions.
Citrix uses less bw than TS, clearly in a thin client env. TS RDP is teh bottleneck.
So there is no use for plain TS systems?
Of course there is!
If I need a system to supply 10 users with ms office, and they need it on the cheap, a single proc system with 1 gb, and a mirrored sata drive is "good enough" and will save me 100's on scsi.
so, there. :)
On 10/3/06, Andrew Wood <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >"There might be times when a *subpar* system is "good enough". Often, > actually. " > > I think that's short sighted and shooting yourself in the foot before > you even get off the ground > > ;) > > -----Original Message----- > From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of richard van beers > Sent: 03 October 2006 09:38 > To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [THIN] Re: SATA drives > > > I'm sorry there is no good arguement for going SATA over SCSI in a > > TS environment. It's short sighted and your shooting yourself in > > the foot before you even get off the ground. > > > Oh cool! A strong opinion and I disagree! (Just slightly) > > There might be times when a subpar system is "good enough". Often, actually. > ************************************************ > For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation > mode use the below link: > //www.freelists.org/list/thin > ************************************************ > > ************************************************ > For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation > mode use the below link: > //www.freelists.org/list/thin > ************************************************ > ************************************************ For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link: //www.freelists.org/list/thin ************************************************
************************************************ For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link: //www.freelists.org/list/thin ************************************************