On Apr 15, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Ron Mayer wrote:
> For example, I didn't see many other $7000 proposals have
> have nearly 10GB of ram, or over a dozen CPUs (even counting
> the raid controllers), or over a half a terrabyte of storage ,
> or capable of 5-10 Gbit/sec of network traffic... The extra
And how much are you spending on the switch that will carry 10Gb/sec
traffic?
> capacity would allow me to have redundancy that would somewhat
> make up for the flakier hardware, no raid, etc.
it would work for some class of applications which are pretty much
read-only. and don't forget to factor in the overhead of the
replication...
>
> Thoughts? Over the next couple months I'll be evaluating
> a cluster of 4 systems almost exactly as I described (but
> with cheaper dual hard drives in each system), for a GIS
> system that does lend itself well to application-level
> partitioning.
I'd go with fewer bigger boxes with RAID so i can sleep better at night
:-)
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449 x806
