[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS over NFS

From: Paul Sander
Subject: Re: CVS over NFS
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 15:46:53 -0700

Something that a lot of people seem to forget is that the total cost of a system exceeds the retail cost of the hardware by a wide margin. Enterprise class servers usually have multiple network interfaces, some of which are dedicated to sophisticated backup mechanisms that generally involve expensive commercial solutions and complex centralized management. Such servers typically also have such concerns such as high-availability, special filesystems, special power, and others. Tacking a Linux box from Walmart into the network and calling it a server, especially when the project's most important asset is at stake, is usually a big mistake and any competent IT group won't guarantee its reliability.

On Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 02:46  PM, address@hidden wrote:

[ On Tuesday, May 7, 2002 at 08:27:38 (-0700), Shatzer, Larry wrote: ]
Subject: RE:  CVS over NFS

I've tried to pitch a dedicated server to run cvs, plus a few other
lightweight applications. In today's economic conditions, that is easier
said then done.

I understand....  The basic hardware you need to probably even
out-perform the HP would likely only cost about $5,000.  In comparison
to the NAS and HP box that should seem like chicken-feed!  ;-)

Why $5k?  Any decent Linux machine should be able to outperform
a loaded HP, I'd think.  Walmart is selling Linux-compatible boxes
without monitors or ethernet connections for $400 on up; that
should outperform an HP doing a lot of database work running CVS
on NFS.  Disk space and CPU power are cheap nowadays.

Are you sure you want to share two highly disk-I/O-intensive
applications on the same server though?  This "cost-saving" measure
might cost you more than real $$$$ in the long run.....

Does anybody care how fast the database runs?  If so, you might
consider that.

Something in the middle, or rather closer to your end likely, is
trashing the X-face: header my mailer adds -- i.e. there's some
non-RFC-822 compliant program handling the message somewhere...

I'm getting the same garbage here, FWIW.

David H. Thornley                        | If you want my opinion, ask.
address@hidden                       | If you don't, flee. | O-

Info-cvs mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]