Best drive configuration?

[Trent©]

I set up a virtual desktop on my pentium 133 laptop to use a 2.8C P4
downstairs to see what kind of speed increase I could get, just passing the
desktop/video over a 10/100 network was slower than the P133 runs by
itself.

I'm not sure what point yer tryin' to make here.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[kony]

I don't know. ALL of them? Again, that's why I asked. My server
holds the programs...and my other machines run the programs from that
server.


Me. lol

And many others, I would guess.

You're talking about simply having the program files on the server but
still it's just a file server, right? The server isn't actually RUNNING
the application, it's just serving the application files.

As for who would run a server OS, that's a very good question... mostly
those who want to finance Microsoft and follow their EULA... of course
there are differences in priority of services by default and number of
connections, but for the most part it's all just a joke, a fileserver can
run a free OS distro from a floppy disk and serve up apps or whatever for
the basic uses described.

 

[kony]

4 gig or so of RAM on the fastest CPU seems like a pretty efficient
idea to me.

It is not efficient because of the LAN speed limitation and the modern
higher-res full color screens. A lot of memory may help, but only to a
point, mostly if GbE is used.

 

[Noozer]

Well...I think I DO. Obviously, I have a different definition than
Noozer. Usually, a server holds the program...so that many different
locations can share the files and work with them simultaneously.

....and programs just are files.

When you run one of the programs that are on your server, it copies over the
network to your client PC's memory and executes, just as if it had loaded
from it's local hard drive. It still runs on the client computer using it's
CPU and memory. The server just sits idle.

He did say he was running server software on it. That's what made me
think it was going to be a true server...not just a primary machine
and a secondary machine.

Server software - serving webpages and email. This actually runs on the
server itself. Very low power uses unless you have a very popular site.

A server is anything that client PC's connect to. Even Kazaa (blech) is a
server. Put it in your PC (NOT suggested) and now you are a server of sorts.

I don't know. ALL of them? Again, that's why I asked. My server
holds the programs...and my other machines run the programs from that
server.

Almost none of them. The few systems out there that still work this way are
old VAX systems or Terminal Server systems. I can't even think of anyone I
know doing this over Xserver on *nix.

terminal?

Me. lol

So, you open a terminal program on your computer and all that transfers
between your PC and the server is the screen info? Anything else and you're
doing the same as everyone else - just using the server to hold files.

And many others, I would guess.

Nobody I know, with the exception of those who manage their servers through
TELNET or Terminal Services.

 

[Stacey]

I run most of my programs from my server.

Clueless...

 

[Stacey]

...and programs just are files.

When you run one of the programs that are on your server, it copies over
the network to your client PC's memory and executes, just as if it had
loaded from it's local hard drive. It still runs on the client computer
using it's CPU and memory. The server just sits idle.

And the network is slower than the HD interface so that just slows the node
machines down.


He doesn't understand what's happening, but then again this is the same
person who believes a CPU can be too cool to be efficient.

 

[Stacey]

I'm not sure what point yer tryin' to make here.

Because you don't realize that you ARE running the application on the node,
not the server even if the software is loaded on the servers HD. The actual
application isn't running on the server. To do otherwise, you'd have to be
serving the video over the network which is MUCH slower than even a pentium
class machine.

 

[Trent©]

Clueless...

<plonk>


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Trent©]

When you run one of the programs that are on your server, it copies over the
network to your client PC's memory and executes, just as if it had loaded
from it's local hard drive. It still runs on the client computer using it's
CPU and memory. The server just sits idle.

No. A server actually runs the program (manipulates the files).
Reading and writing is done on the server.

The program must be 'run', of course, from the workstation. But,
depending on the program, I/O is done on the server itself.

It wouldn't make much sense for a program with a 2 gig data file to
re-sort, for instance, by copying that file to each workstation.

Server software - serving webpages and email. This actually runs on the
server itself. Very low power uses unless you have a very popular site.

A server is anything that client PC's connect to. Even Kazaa (blech) is a
server. Put it in your PC (NOT suggested) and now you are a server of sorts.

I understand what yer sayin'. And I understand what yer tryin' to do
with your system. But you certainly don't need Server 2003 to do
this. Why are you spending all that money for the OS?

Almost none of them. The few systems out there that still work this way are
old VAX systems or Terminal Server systems. I can't even think of anyone I
know doing this over Xserver on *nix.

One corporation in my area has at least 50 servers for their different
LAN's. Most of them don't even have input devices attached. And some
don't even have monitors. They're only purpose is to process
information for the workstations (I still call them nodes).

And, yes...a footprint must be installed on each workstation.

terminal?

The final I/O...and permissions...is performed on the server.

So, you open a terminal program on your computer and all that transfers
between your PC and the server is the screen info? Anything else and you're
doing the same as everyone else - just using the server to hold files.

It doesn't just hold files. It does I/O.

Anyway, this is all interesting. But I think we're just beating a
dead horse.

I simply asked/suggested why you weren't using the fastest machine as
the server. I was curious as to what yer actually tryin' to do.

I'm not sure I explained my concept of 'server'. Maybe that's the
biggest part of the problem.

Anyway...good luck.


Have a nice week...

Trent©

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

 

[Stacey]

Trent© wrote:

One corporation in my area has at least 50 servers for their different
LAN's. Most of them don't even have input devices attached. And some
don't even have monitors. They're only purpose is to process
information for the workstations (I still call them nodes).

They STORE information, they don't process it. Why do you think they are
called FILE servers etc.. My "server" doesn't have any input devices or a
monitor connected either once it was set up, but the only time it's used in
the way you describe is when I telnet into it to do mantanence. Unless
you're using something like VNC or PC anywhere to the server which is rare
for a lan, you CAN'T be running software on the server.