My next Workstation

Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail francisco.diaztrepat at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 17:07:24 UTC 2010


thanks Preston, that was awesome.

Really man, I think you are right. I am better off buying amd and 4 drives,
and maybe 8gb of ram.

1Q: Could it be that some times software is not built for amd and more
likely gets built for intel 64?

Thanks again,
f(t)

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Preston Hagar <prestonh at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8 July 2010 16:19, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail
> > You mean RAID0? Waste of money. Doesn't really help much and doubles
> > the risk of failure. If you want disk performance, get an SSD boot
> > drive. Disable swap. Keep /home on rotating media. 1TB drives are
> > quite cheap now. Consider a motherboard with SATA 6gig.
> >
>
> Actually, if you have the money for it, RAID 10 can help both
> performance and reliability/uptime.  You will need four drives, but
> you will get a performance boost, plus the boost of having to have two
> drives fail to go down (RAID isn't a replacement for backups though).
>
> I have used the Syba cards before and they are generally fine for
> software RAID (they are fakeraid on board though, so you are better
> off just using them as a SATA Controller and using "normal" Linux
> software RAID).  That said, most motherboards now have at least 4 SATA
> ports, if not 6-8, so you could likely just use the on-board ports to
> connect your drives with software RAID.  Really, to get true hardware
> RAID that would have performance benefits over software raid, you
> would be looking at spending $200-$300 USD on just a RAID card, which
> is half of your budget and not worth it anyway.  If you want RAID for
> performance, you will need to do RAID 10 with 4 drives.  If you want
> RAID for redundancy, you can do RAID 1 with 2 drives (and will get a
> small performance hit).  Either way, I would recommend sticking with
> Linux software RAID and just using the on-board ports.
>
>
> >> I am thinking in getting Intel 2 Core Quad 8300 processor.
>
> As a quick note about processors, in general, the latest Intels
> (specifically the core i5s and i7s) beat the current AMD offerings
> hands down.  That said, they are usually much more expensive, plus the
> motherboards are much more expensive.  If you are looking to stay in
> the $500-$600 range, then you really want something more middle of the
> road, instead of high end like the Intels.  I would recommend looking
> into the AMD Phenoms.
>
> That said, depending on what you are doing, you might be better off
> going for a little less CPU and a little more RAM.  It really depends
> on what you are shooting for though.  DDR2 ram is pretty cheap now, so
> I would shoot for more along the lines of 4 GB min.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Preston
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20100708/dabc4d2c/attachment.html>


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list