Iftach Hyams wrote:
>
> ...
> > enough. If, instead, a 550MHz CPU is used (+10%), this would be more
> ...
> > Gavrie.
> >
> It is the biggest lie ever !
> You have a mother board and a memory running at 100/133Mhz,
> You have a loaded bus + loaded IDE/SCSI drives,
> You have a loaded network ...
>
> If you like a real improvment, you need a :
> a) Better optimized application ...
> b) Bigger cache (Xeon ?).
> c) More RAM.
> d) Fast mother board.
> e) GOOD network adapter.
> f) GOOD SCSI adapter.
> g) Dual (or more) CPU's
>
> A faster CPU is enough when you are running a program consist of
> a endless loop of simple computation. Once you have an overall work
> (like any normal server) it is not so important (but nice to have).
What does this whole rant have to do with the issue? What point are you
trying to make clear?
The only thing I said, is that for many applications, the cost
effectiveness of software RAID is much better than that of hardware
RAID. If that weren't true, why would software RAID exist in the first
place? If you have the money -- fine, buy hardware RAID. But if you'd
like to be cost effective, this may be superfluous. It's similar to the
IDE vs. SCSI issue, and similar to the Ultra160 vs Ultra2 etc. issues:
buy what you need according to the performance you need and according to
the budget you have.
What can be simpler than that?
Gavrie.
--
Gavrie Philipson
Netmor Applied Modeling Research Ltd.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
