You know the CPU might make a big difference if he were running Windows,
but we're running Linux, an performance wise the Dual Core running
Linux, will keep up with if not kick butt on a Dual Zeon running Windows
2003 server.
Windows by design is a CPU hog, heck it takes several Windows boxes if
you listen to Windows tech's to do the same thing as a single Linux
box. Microsoft guy's would prefer to have DNS on one box, mail on
another and web services on still a third, throw in a SQL db and well
add in another Windows server.
I don't know how many times, I've heard from hired Microsoft guru's tell
me I can do that, it needs to be on it's own machine.
Back to point, the dual core CPU's today are very close to performance
as the Zeon's a series or so back, so if cost is an issue and you can't
afford a full Zeon server the dual core will do a great job, even if not
a 1U or 2U server with hot swap drives....
Remember the intent of Linux is to keep it cheap, Microsoft on the other
hand has the make it cost and cost and cost....
john plemons
John R Pierce wrote:
Cen Tos wrote:
3. Hardware to be used would be Intel Core 2 Duo on an Asus P5B-VM-D0
(Q965, ICH8-D0, Intel GMA3000 GPU) with SATA hard disks.
thats a desktop motherboard, not really what I'd consider 'server'
grade. Now, if this is just a SOHO 'server', that may not matter,
but if this is going into a colocation site to host production
websites, I'd want a 1U or 2U server with niceties like hotswap hard
drives, redundant power supplies, and ECC memory, perhaps one of the
Tyan or SuperMicro servers.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
