My next Workstation

[Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail]

LOL at College fund

Better yet, I don't have any yet.

:-)

f(t)

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Billie Walsh <bilwalsh at swbell.net> wrote:

>  On 07/08/2010 10:19 AM, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail wrote:
>
> I hope you don't mind me asking this here:
>
> Hi guys, I'm currently in the process of researching some hardware for my
> next ubuntu workstation.
>
>  My goal is to spend between 500 and 600 uds, and I want to put some
> enfasis on what I think is the current bottle neck of speed this days, and
> that is Hard Drives.
>
>  I would like to have a RAID array to have better performance.
>
>  I am thinking in getting Intel 2 Core Quad 8300 processor. But I am open
> to other choices too. Because Ubuntu is more focus on software/fake RAID I
> would like a multicore processor, and 64bit arch sounds good too.
>
>  So right now my options looks something like this:
>
>  Processor   Intel Core 2 Quad 8300
> RAM         1 X 2gb DDR2 800mhz
> Mother      Intel Dg43gt
> HD          2 X 500gb SATA 3.0Gb/s
>
>  If I could I would like more drives in RAID.
> And if possible real RAID?
>      I found about this controller: Syba PCI Express SATA II 4 x Ports RAID
> Controller Card SY-PEX40008
>      PCI Express with transfer rate 2.5 Gb/s Full Duplex channel. Fully
> Plug & Play compatible. Supports Raid function 0, 1, 5, 10. SATA II
> Interface
>
>  I had some people comments about AMD but I am kind of unfamiliar and I
> thought the Quad was a nice processor but that it used to be too overpriced.
>
>  Any comments guides or recommendations would be great, I feel a bit in
> the dark with this and would surely appreciate some guidance.
>
>  Regards,
> f(t)
>
>
> Liam mentioned an SSHD.
>
> In my experience with computers memory is always going to be faster than
> mechanical hard drives. Back in the dark ages I had an old 8088 computer
> that I installed what was called a "Rampat" board with 100meg of memory on
> it. The computer was already running the maximum memory that it could see so
> I used the extra as a ramdisk. When I called a program from my bat file it
> first copied the program from the hard drive to the ramdisk and then
> executed it. There was a slight performance hit from the copy process but
> the programs ran so much faster it was unreal.
>
> I have an Asus EeePC with a 64 gig SSHD, 2 gigs memory and Atom processor,
> with 10.4 installed. For speed it kicks butt. It's way faster than my dual
> core laptop or quad core desktop [ four gigs memory on both ]. Boots faster
> and executes programs faster.
>
> I've heard a lot of talk about long term durability with SSHD's but then I
> have some really _OLD_ computers around here with no memory problems. Some
> have outlived the original hard drives that were in the computers by many
> years. [ two or three hard drives ] YMMV
>
> Something else. Never skimp on memory. Use as much as possible or until
> your dipping into the kids college fund, whichever comes first. Best
> investment in computer performance.
>
> Just my $1.00 worth [ $0.02 adjusted for inflation ].
>
> --
> "A good moral character is the first essential in a man." George Washington
>
>
> --
> 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/20100711/eb1bb58a/attachment.html>