Re: Server

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be really handy to be able to run several systems at once ...
in our case I'm always switching between OS6.5 & OS7.5, and OS8.6 or
OS9.2 & OS10.4 & (one day) 'XP according to the software &
machine I'm
trying to use ... swaps mostly do take well under a minute, but it would
be better if it was less than a second !

(don't mention Classic, which I found to be just a joke !)

Chris



Andy Laurence wrote:

> Chris Hunter <mailto:cjhunter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I guess it would be easy to add others, too .. web-server,
> > for example ... then again, I wonder it the nature of servers is
> > changing ... ie: tasks are being shared on a network, duplication
is
> > being reduced, with each machine doing its bit, according to its
> > speciality ... etc etc.
>
> I'd say it's going more the othre way.  Virtualisation is starting to
> take off, even at enterprise level.  Running multiple machines on one
> piece of hardware is now commonplace.  In fact, this laptop I'm typing
> on is also running two other virtual machines using VMWare GSX.
>
> > So, how about RAID ... will we all need / have RAID (0, 1, 10,
> > whatever)  before long ?
>
> It depends how much resilience you require.  Personally, I'm trying to
> keep power consumption down, so one disk is better than two.  Also,
the
> kind of machine that has a RAID controller, tends to have two
> processors, and consumes vastly more power.  I think of it this way -
my
> data is backed up off-site, and I can restore a machine in a short
space
> of time, should I need to using either images or backups.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy