Re: Opinons?

[Tom Jedrzejewicz <tomjedrz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/9/05, Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> It's also going to be my primary WDSC box. That's the main reasons I
> want two processors. I figure that even if I'm using the box as a
> Windows server and for hosting various web sites, that I can still use
> one of the processors for WDSC. Is this a reasonable thought?
> Remember: this will NEVER be used as a production file server or
> anything like that. It may be used to host low-volume websites, and for
> testing various server packages.


You will be much happier if you get two separate boxes, one for the server 
functions and one for workstation/WDSc functions. Buy a good ThinkPad (< 
$2k) or a good ThinkCentre machine (<$1500) with a bunch of RAM for the WDSC 
work.

Be aware that not all apps can use dual processors .. I don't know about 
WDSc .. and the Windows installation is different for a dual processor 
system. Also, the things that make a system a good server aren't the same 
things that make it a good workstation. 

Also, do you really want to be developing on the same box hosting even the 
low volume web sites? What happens if you crash it, or have to re-install 
WDSc, or one of the other nightmares that developers periodically get in 
with their systems .. are you prepared for these web sites to be down?

Given that, I'm leaning towards twin 3.2GHz processors and the five
> drives for $3500. How much bang for the buck is an extra .2 GHz worth?
> What do you all think?


My thought has always been that once I suck it up and decide to buy, I buy 
the best CPU you can afford, generally 1 step below the leading edge. Memory 
and disk can be added later for incremental costs, but replacing a processor 
is a nightmare. What you are effectively doing is buying a few months of 
longer life on the back end.
As an aside .. I see nothing related to backup on this configuration ...