070709 Dan Farrell wrote: > 070710 Iain Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> KVM's are OS independent; they can get you into the BIOS or console; >> you can see boot messages; network doesn't need to be working >> even though it's called a network, sometimes it doesn't ;) > that's another huge pain. > but all-in-all, I find switching between computers vastly less efficient > (once they're up) than multiple X windows or virtual terminals. > the big difference between our perspectives is > that my other computers arent backups, they do other things > & therefore are in that functioning state much of the time. > If they were backups I probably wouldn't be nearly as comfortable > getting at them with the primary desktop > as when they're servers making that desktop function.
My set-up is very simple: a front-line machine I use all the time & an older machine which is intended as an alternative in an emergency, if the regular machine runs into a problem (hardware or software). For this to work, I need to have a fairly upto-date version of files in the back-up machine (without going off-site to get a back-up CD/DVD). Therefore, I need to wake up the 2nd machine every few months or more often & changing the connections in the backs of the boxes is a pain, so being able to flip a switch to use the controls with the other box is very attractive. A network requires other connections (which cost CAD), besides learning how to set it up & secure it from possible malware when either machine is connected to the Internet. The KVM switch mentioned costs CAD 32 = USD 30 . -- ========================,,============================================ SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
