On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Serving would certainly be an issue if we got 120 desktop machines with > 250 > > gigs each (which we could probably find in the trash cans of some > > organizations). > > If you can find 120 rack mountable desktop machines with 250GB each in > them and find a place to put them in a rack somewhere, we can > certainly put them to use ... would make a nice processing cluster > actually if they had reasonably modern processors. > Rack mountable would be harder to come by. And "certainly put them to use" isn't exactly the kind of thing that motivates me to find them. And, I think you're greatly underestimating the cost to power 120 old, used, rack mountable desktop machines. They're in the trash can for a reason. It's cheaper to buy a new one than it is to pay to keep the old one on 24/7. > So, it's not *just* disk and bandwidth. But if CPU isn't an issue, 8 > > servers @ 4 terabytes each seems like about the sweet spot in balancing > > cost, space, and power consumption. > > On what are you basing that? > www.pricewatch.com? On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > Why can't you just have one of those cool firewalls which redirects the http request to a particular > machine depending on the url? Or even cheaper, serve tiles using a protocol that allows 302 redirects.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
