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?
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,
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-users