On 9/26/2010 8:06 AM, devsk wrote:
On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
| [snip]
|If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then
there's
absolutely
|no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine
which is 1- or 2-
|generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily
available,
| [sn
>
>
> On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> | [snip]
> |If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then
> there's
> absolutely
> |no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine
> which is 1- or 2-
> |generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily
> available,
> | [snip]
> =
> On 2010-Sep-24 00:58:47 +0800, "R.G. Keen"
> wrote:
> > But for me, the likelihood of
> >making a setup or operating mistake in a virtual machine
> >setup server is far outweighs the hardware cost to put
> >another physical machine on the ground.
>
> The downsides are generally that it'll be
On 2010-Sep-24 00:58:47 +0800, "R.G. Keen" wrote:
>That may not be the best of all possible things to do
>on a number of levels. But for me, the likelihood of
>making a setup or operating mistake in a virtual machine
>setup server is far outweighs the hardware cost to put
>another physical machi
On 9/23/2010 at 12:38 PM Erik Trimble wrote:
| [snip]
|If you don't really care about ultra-low-power, then there's
absolutely
|no excuse not to buy a USED server-class machine which is 1- or 2-
|generations back. They're dirt cheap, readily available,
| [snip]
=
Anyone have
[I'm deleting the whole thread, since this is a rehash of several
discussions on this list previously - check out the archives, and search
for "ECC RAM"]
These days, for a "home" server, you really have only one choice to make:
"How much power do I care that this thing uses?"
If you are s
I should clarify. I was addressing just the issue of
virtualizing, not what the complete set of things to
do to prevent data loss is.
> 2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
> > and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
> Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true
> statement?
Yes, it is. Last
On Thu, September 23, 2010 01:33, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> 2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
>
>> and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
>
> Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
> that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
> RAM
> On 23-9-2010 10:25, casper@sun.com wrote:
>> I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
>
>I'm using ZFS on a non-ECC machine for years now without any issues.
>Never had errors. Plus, like others said, other OS'ses have the same
>problems and also run quite well. If
On 23-9-2010 10:25, casper@sun.com wrote:
I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
I'm using ZFS on a non-ECC machine for years now without any issues.
Never had errors. Plus, like others said, other OS'ses have the same
problems and also run quite well. If not, yo
I'm using ZFS on a system w/o ECC; it works (it's an Atom 230).
Note that this is not different from using another OS; the difference is
that ZFS will complain when memory leads to disk corruption; without ZFS
you will still have memory corruption but you wouldn't know.
Is it helpful not know
On 09/23/10 06:33 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
Hi.
2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
RAM. And those cheap
Hi.
2010/9/19 R.G. Keen
> and last-generation hardware is very, very cheap.
Yes, of course, it is. But, actually, is that a true statement? I've read
that it's *NOT* advisable to run ZFS on systems which do NOT have ECC
RAM. And those cheapo last-gen hardware boxes quite often don't have
ECC, d
13 matches
Mail list logo
