Re: SOHO SUN Server - I'm giving up

llothar <llothar@xxxxxx> wrote:
I tried to setup a small office server

So why did you buy a desktop machine, then? If it had to be a desktop
machine for whatever reason, you'd done better buying an Ultra 2 instead.

that controlls an automated
software build system (compilation on 5 different computers and 18 OS
combinations), maintains business datas in a postgresql database, works
as subversion server and as the staging server for the main website.

Everything is so complicated on SUN hardware.

I woudn't say so.

I purchased a Ultra 10
put it 10 GB but was not able to add a hardware IDE RAID

You get what you pay for. If you want a proper hardware raid, go for
SCSI.
BTW: You could also have used SVM for mirroring. Most "IDE RAID"
Controllers are software controlled anyway so there wouldn't have
been much difference.

or control the power supply (programmed switch on/off).

Remember you bought a desktop machine. A Netra T1 for example would
have done that.

I'm now moving to a 733 Mhz PIII with 512 MB running Linux and Hardware
RAID 1 for the main 80 GB and 2 external Firewire Backup Disk.

Oh, please tell a bit more about this setup. Sounds intriguing.
I wonder how its possible to do a hardware raid between an IDE disk
on one side and one or more FW disks on the other.

I spend
to much time trying to setup the Sparc System, and it seems to have no
value for such a small low traffic system.

Get a T1 or something alike instead of abusing a desktop machine as
a server.

So it seems pretty clear to me why SUN is lossing ground in the
small/mid server range. It simply makes no sense to purchase this.

To me, it makes even less sense to use a proven unstable and unreliable
system like Linux. (And I *dare* to say that, as I worked on about 30.000
Linux/x86 boxes for every day over 6 years until 7 months ago).

Seems you made some mistake and instead of admitting it, you're rather
ranting about Sun and Solaris.


Martin
--
For the Snark's a peculiar creature, that won't
Be caught in a commonplace way.
Do all that you know, and try all that you don't;
Not a chance must be wasted to-day!"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Setting up Raid 1
    ... We had a so-called expert consultant set up a 3 drive array as a software RAID 5. ... It's **ALWAYS** best to have hardware RAID. ... We ordered a Dell 2900 server with 2 drives and the integrated RAID adapter configured as RAID 1. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Windows XP RAID 5
    ... I'm in the process of a new build (can't find the machine I want for sensible cash, ... The network is currently only 100MB/s, but will probably end up upgrading the room the server is in to use gigabit. ... I know that buying a real PCI raid card will get better results, but I'd rather not spend that much cash, and with the limitations of the network over which the data will be accessed I don;t really see the need to try and squeeze every last drop of performance out of the system. ... I would suggest using inexpensive hardware RAID and making do with 500Gbyte or simple mirror - or add another couple of disks to get the 750. ...
    (uk.comp.homebuilt)
  • Re: Setting up Raid 1
    ... If you use a hardware raid controller ... him to take this server 2003 class with me, thought it would of been very ... One of the drives failed. ... So for future knowledge it's always best to use a hardware raid controller ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Server hardware replacement
    ... It would be the Mirroring within Server 2003 if I understand you correctly. ... Two dynamic drives and the configuration from Disk Manager. ... Raid protection is ... I know Adaptec produce hardware Raid ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: What is prisoner.iana.org?
    ... Is the lack of an in-addr.arpa zone going to cause my desktop machine to ... >> server DNS/prisoner.iana.org. ... > for a private address that the DNS server can't handle. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
Quantcast