Re: Re: Storage subsystem for HA server

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 >Server 2003 R2 ...

seems to have a good reputation ... 'was looking for a price, and c.450GPB,
presumably +VAT, seemed to be typical ... not sure if would be less in an
OEM edition, 'though I'm not sure what happens with OEM editions if disc
crashes & need to reload ...




Chris





Ian Lowe wrote:

>>plus going the PC route seems to be a recipe for getting sucked-in
to
>>
>>
>lots of unplanned costs over time ... which we've found tends not to be
>the case with Apple ...
>
>See, I just don't get this...
>
>The only reasons I have ever had for upgrading my hardware are
component
>failure, or because my needs changed. If you have a windows server just
>ticking away, doing it's do, then it will do the same job for years
without
>ever needing new hardware until something fails.
>
>The unplanned costs over time are because the platform provides you
with so
>many new things to try that you grow the requirements beyond the
original
>and start asking the server to do more and more with each passing year.
>
>The Xserve units always leave me cold - if you want a nice desktop OS,
Macs
>are great, and parallels brings a whole new dimension to that, but if
you
>want a general purpose server, you simply cannot beat Server 2003 R2,
or one
>of the variety of Linux SME distros, if you have an anti-microsoft
beef.
>
>Xserve strikes me as not solving any technical need, just providing
another
>route for Mac Zealots to purchase from the Temple of Jobs!!
>
>Ian
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]