Server Advice

[Lordy]

Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things". Heaping on dozens of times more potential for
things to go wrong is what should be avoided, not advised at
a significant cost overhead.

You are exagerating my argument.

Hard disc fails Monday morning. OP is on vacation.

Power cut at weekend. Machine fails to boot at next switch on.

These things dont happen a lot. But they do happen. Or are you saying
that these things dont go wrong?

In a business context they can potentially cost money.

As you assert, it may be an acceptable risk for the business to deal
with a situation as it happens. It depends on why they want a "file
server" and how they plan to use it. Remember, we can **assume**, the
business has little in house skills to deal with things that we may
consider fairly trivial.

Please dont exaggerate what I say to add credance to your argument. It
doesnt interest me! And IMO reflects badly on you.

Lordy

 

[Lordy]

Vague references to "things go wrong" is not an arguement to
increase the complexity of the system except to combat those
"things".

Presumably you have access to special hardware that doesnt fail?
Maybe a discless file server of some kind.

I just didnt think it would be necessary to qualify "things go wrong" with
someone who is entertaining a rational line of though. Sheesh.

Lordy

 

[recursor]

I'm sorry, I forgot that nobody knows how to do anything
besides click a mouse anymore.

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).

 

[kony]

You are exagerating my argument.

Hard disc fails Monday morning. OP is on vacation.

Power cut at weekend. Machine fails to boot at next switch on.

These things dont happen a lot. But they do happen. Or are you saying
that these things dont go wrong?

I"m saying, that these things are independant, they are not
an argument for or against making a simple task as complex
as possible.

In a business context they can potentially cost money.

This is news? What bearing does that have, you seem to
imply that this is a factor, or rather, that there is a
decrease in the potential for this to happen. How, EXACTLY,
do you feel there will be decrease?

As you assert, it may be an acceptable risk for the business to deal
with a situation as it happens. It depends on why they want a "file
server" and how they plan to use it. Remember, we can **assume**, the
business has little in house skills to deal with things that we may
consider fairly trivial.

What in the world are you going on about?
Isn't that an argument for simplicity, focusing on these
risks instead of on (things not needed)?

Please dont exaggerate what I say to add credance to your argument. It
doesnt interest me! And IMO reflects badly on you.

Spare us the nonsense and come right out with your point.

 

[kony]

Presumably you have access to special hardware that doesnt fail?
Maybe a discless file server of some kind.

Perhaps you have some reason for pretending there is an
alternative?

I just didnt think it would be necessary to qualify "things go wrong" with
someone who is entertaining a rational line of though. Sheesh.

No, but you would need qualify how "things go wrong" is a
variable instead of a constant, and further, why introducing
greater complexity in areas OTHER than combating failure
points, is a positive thing for the aforementioned tasks.

 

[kony]

Yes it is unreasonable of you to expect everyone else to live up to your unsurpassed standard of
technical knowledge. (I must dig out my old copy of interlink and a serial cable).

If it would do the job just as well then go right ahead...
otherwise let's focus on realistic solutions.

 

[recursor]

If it would do the job just as well then go right ahead...
otherwise let's focus on realistic solutions.

Well perhaps my posts have been frivolous but they didn't need to be much else, there have been some
*very* helpful posts in this thread, not least the one from paul andrews (9/12/04 8.45) at the
bottom of this thread which perfectly encapsulates a lot of the good advice that was given prior to
that. I hardly think your slagging off of most posts has helped the OP much.

 

[kony]

Well perhaps my posts have been frivolous but they didn't need to be much else, there have been some
*very* helpful posts in this thread, not least the one from paul andrews (9/12/04 8.45) at the
bottom of this thread which perfectly encapsulates a lot of the good advice that was given prior to
that. I hardly think your slagging off of most posts has helped the OP much.

Fortunately that doesn't change anything.
While there has been a lot of "good advice", I suspect the
OP was looking more for directions, the best thing to do to
meet the described goal. So far DETAILS towards that end
have been conspicuously missing from the thread. While it's
good advice to suggest seeking a supplier for server and
support, isn't that obvious enough, I mean, who doesn't know
they can plonk down cash and order a server from Dell et
al.? The OP's post tended to suggest another route was
desired.

 

[recursor]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 18:30:09 -0000, "recursor"
Fortunately that doesn't change anything.
While there has been a lot of "good advice", I suspect the
OP was looking more for directions, the best thing to do to
meet the described goal. So far DETAILS towards that end
have been conspicuously missing from the thread. While it's
good advice to suggest seeking a supplier for server and
support, isn't that obvious enough, I mean, who doesn't know
they can plonk down cash and order a server from Dell et
al.? The OP's post tended to suggest another route was
desired.

Since the OP didn't say how big or how often the files to be transferred are (and has not posted
since) it's amazing that you think *you* alone know what he needs.As other posters have said - he
wasn't very (if at all) specific about most of what any half thinking person would need to know to
accurately advise him about his requirements..
HTH

 

[kony]

Since the OP didn't say how big or how often the files to be transferred are (and has not posted
since) it's amazing that you think *you* alone know what he needs.As other posters have said - he
wasn't very (if at all) specific about most of what any half thinking person would need to know to
accurately advise him about his requirements..
HTH

.... and yet, you already implied overkill is a good idea for
6 clients. Thank goodness for Server 2003, until now we've
not be able to FTP or serve files, let there be light in
this new era!!!
LOL.

 

[Lordy]

What in the world are you going on about?
Isn't that an argument for simplicity, focusing on these
risks instead of on (things not needed)?

Sorry, I dont think either of us understands the other. Best stop here..

 

[Lordy]

No, but you would need qualify how "things go wrong" is a
variable instead of a constant,

WTF? Hello! <knock knock> It's a risk!

 

[Lordy]

There really isn't any need to complicate a fileserver.

Hard drives fail.

 

[recursor]

WTF? Hello! <knock knock> It's a risk!

Lol, this guy is a ****ing halfwit.

 

[Lordy]

I"m saying, that these things are independant, they are not
an argument for or against making a simple task as complex
as possible.

Im saying the business and OP need to know or agree a plan of action in
this instance. (When hardware fails - which it does). Simple. It doesnt
have to be complex. Plonking down some wads for support is not difficult or
complex. If the OP can support the box - and business know who to phone
when OP is on vacation - thats not difficult either. I think you are just
arguing for arguments sake. Thats a euphanism for troll

 

[Lordy]

Perhaps you have some reason for pretending there is an
alternative?

Does anyone understand this?

 

[kony]

Im saying the business and OP need to know or agree a plan of action in
this instance. (When hardware fails - which it does). Simple. It doesnt
have to be complex. Plonking down some wads for support is not difficult or
complex. If the OP can support the box - and business know who to phone
when OP is on vacation - thats not difficult either. I think you are just
arguing for arguments sake. Thats a euphanism for troll

Nope, I'm the kind of person who likes to be able to catch a
problem and fix it *immediately*, even if that means pulling
out a board and flashing the 'prom or soldering capacitors
in a power supply or (whatever). I don't consider it all
that valuable to have support where it means you get parts
sent the next day or in a week, when the majority of
standard parts can be replaced from any online vendor,
overnighted for less than the support contract. It boils
down to what the company needs for uptime too, it can be
prudent to buy TWO of the same thing just to have a spare
sitting available.

Vendor or 3rd party support is a lot less necessary if OP is
familiar with the hardware, the OS, and the system is kept
to the tasks needed. Keep in mind that again, this is (so
far) expressedly only a fileserver and FTP box. I"m not
suggesting vendor support is a bad thing, but in some cases
it's too little, to late to minimize loss. Most effective
is having someone on-site who knows the system, or the
alternative, keeping the system in line with what those
on-site, know.

 

[Lordy]

Nope, I'm the kind of person who likes to be able to catch a
problem and fix it *immediately*, even if that means pulling
out a board and flashing the 'prom or soldering capacitors
in a power supply or (whatever).

Vendor or 3rd party support is a lot less necessary if OP is
familiar with the hardware, the OS, and the system is kept
to the tasks needed.

Good. Now might I suggest you re-read the original post to this thread.

 

[kony]

WTF? Hello! <knock knock> It's a risk!

yes, but the point being, this isn't some kind of news nor
an arguement for one choice over another, the risk is a
constant... there is no "I choose {this} therefore no more
risk".

 

[Lordy]

yes, but the point being, this isn't some kind of news nor
an arguement for one choice over another, the risk is a
constant... there is no "I choose {this} therefore no more
risk".

It's called "risk analysis".