Search Results

Search found 33496 results on 1340 pages for '32 vs 64 bit'.

Page 151/1340 | < Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >

  • Adding a second IP address for IIS - static vs dynamic A records

    - by serialhobbyist
    I'm looking to add a second IP address to IIS so that I can run two sites with different SSL certificates. When I added one on my play box and ran ipconfig /registerdns both addresses were registered in DNS with the server's name. So, I deleted the A record for the new IP address and rebooted. That also registered both names. So, then I went into the network config for the adapter and, on the DNS tab, unchecked "Register this connection's addresses in DNS". I deleted the A record for the new IP address again and re-ran ipconfig /registerdns. This time, it deleted the A record for the old IP address and didn't created one for the new address. Neither of these is what I want: I want the main IP address to be registered and refreshed automatically as a dynamic DNS record and the second IP address to be registered and managed as a static address. Is there any way to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Bacula vs. BackupPC

    - by chronoz
    I have been googling about the differences between them. Bacula has lots of roles BackupPC is easier to configure Bacula works with agent, not rsync (great for Windows backups) It seems that Bacula is most often compared to Amanda though, while BackupPC seems a perfectly lovely and popular backup distribution to. I currently backup my servers with rsnapshot, but I am looking for a professional scalable solution that could also back-up 50 hosts without problems. Preferably a solution that can offer bare metal restores for my Linux servers. I am not looking to reinstall the exact same version of Plesk, the software, etc...

    Read the article

  • CentOS Vs Windows Server 2008

    - by Steve
    Hi, Apologies if the question appears ambiguous, I have little experience in this area and was after some informed opinions. I am deploying a test scenario of a server/client network and need to make some choices for Server. The client will be a Windows system as it meets the requirements for the client, the server choice has more room for selection. From my experience with Linux in general and the appealing nature of open source for low cost, security etc and the availability and performance of database and web server programs I have been considering CentOS as a server choice. I have the ability to make most of the choices of what software / server packages I wish to install. This includes Active Directory (something I have no experience with). How well does this operate with Windows clients? Am I being too selective and creating unnecessary complication by setting out not to use a Windows Server OS?

    Read the article

  • Slideshow screensaver in Win-7 vs. XP

    - by daveh551
    Since I skipped Vista, this may be an old question, I don't know. In XP, the built-in SlideShow (Photos) screensaver would randomly rotate among images not just in the directory specified in the settings, but also in any sub-directories (and on down) of that directory. When I use the Photos screensaver in Win-7, it seems to use only images in the directory I specify, ignoring the rest of the tree below that. Is there a way to get the XP behavior? Alternatively, is there some other public domain/open source Screen Saver with that or similar behavior that I can install?

    Read the article

  • Renting an "EC2" server VS buying one (for a start up in initial stages)

    - by krish p
    We are a small start up in the early stages and are working on a SaaS-based Rails product. Currently, we use EC2 for a small instance and have a need for another large/extra-large instance as we are beginning to deploy to the Cloud and get ready to release our "alpha" version. While EC2 was my choice for numerous reasons (reliability, accessibility - small team is geographically dispersed, maintainability, and things of that nature), it appears to be rather expensive. While the product will ultimately be deployed in the Cloud (be it EC2 or otherwise) and that experience would help the development team, would it make sense to purchase a physical server and stick it in the basement or bite the bullet and pay the price for EC2 (or other Cloud Providers)? While such decisions are driven by numerous factors, it would certainly help to get the thoughts of other folks who may have been in similar situations. Hence, the post. Thanks much!

    Read the article

  • OpenVZ vs KVM for Linux VMs

    - by Eliasdx
    Hardware: Intel® Core™ i7-920, 12 GB DDR3 RAM, 2 x 1500 GB SATA-II HDD (no SoftRaid because Proxmox developers don't support softraid and they are sure you'll run into problems) Software: Proxmox VE with KVM and OpenVZ support and debian everywhere I want to run multiple Linux VMs on this server. One for a firewall (I want to try pfSense), one for MySQL, one VM for nginx (my stuff) and ~2 VMs with nginx for other people's web sites. I don't think that pfSense will run in an OpenVZ environment but it should run in KVM. The question is if I should setup the other VMs using KVM or OpenVZ. In OpenVZ they should have less overhead for the OS itself but I don't know about the performance. I heard that KVM is more stable but needs more RAM and CPU. I found this diagram showing a OpenVZ setup on the same hardware I'm using. This guy uses an own VM for each and every website which is running on his server. I can't think of any advantage why he's using so many VMs.

    Read the article

  • Software/FakeRAID: Windows 8 Disk Mirroring vs Intel Onboard

    - by Johnny W
    So Windows 8 is out and I have a new motherboard. I wish to create a RAID 1 coupling between two HDDs -- for storage purposes only (my OS is on an SSD) -- but I don't know which is the best route to take. My motherboard (Z77 chipset) comes with the age old Intel Fake RAID, but since I only wish to use my RAID for storage, I wondered if I might be better to use Windows 8 Disk Mirroring. Can anyone advise which is better? Or perhaps the pros and cons of each, if that's too contentious? I just can't see the benefit of FakeRAID. You can see my current setup here, if that might change things(?): Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Nexus One vs Xperia X10

    - by Mark
    Trying to decide which phone to get; I think I've narrowed it down to one of these two. The Xperia X10 seems pretty sweet except for one drawback: the phone/voice quality seems to be lacking. I haven't heard anything about the quality on the Nexus though. Otherwise they seem pretty neck and neck. What do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • TCP Server Memory management: #Connections Vs. #Requests

    - by Andrew
    Given that, there is no theoretical limit to number of concurrent TCP connections a Windows 2008 server can handle. Only thing will happen is, with each connection there will be memory consumption in server. Unfortunately, memory is not unlimited (and I want to utilize only physical memory). For example, lets say we've 2GB server memory. Now there are two extreme cases: Case 1: If we've allocated 64KB buffer for each connection (only to receive incoming request), then 32768 connections can consume all the 2GB of memory. This will not leave any memory to queue/process incoming requests from those connections. Case 2: On the other hand, lets say a single (or very few) connections continuously keeps sending request buffers (for example, video streaming from one connection to other) and server cannot process them within time, those buffers will get piled up in server and eventually will occupy most of the servers memory. And it will not leave any memory for new connection thereafter. This is the real dilemma in server design bugging me badly for last many days. If I can decide on max size of request buffer per connection and max number of requests to allow in queue per connection. Then, based on available server memory, it will then automatically set limit on max number of concurrent connections. How to decide on these limits to achieve best performance and throughput? I am just looking for perfect utilization of server resources. Are there any standard guidelines or empirical data available with someone who can share with me please.

    Read the article

  • Two Firefox windows vs two browsers? Ram Consumption

    - by Kayle
    I don't know enough about Ram & sharing to know what the difference is here. Normally, I run Chrome in one desktop for personal use, and Firefox on a second desktop for business. I like the separation of saved passwords and whatnot. However, I recently learned that I can open two different profiles in Firefox at the same time, so I was wondering if that would be cheaper to my system resources, or not? Out the door, I don't think it would save more than 40-60mb of ram... but I'm wondering, 3 hours later, if ram handling will be better using just one browser for all my heavy lifting. I only have 2gb of ram and I run iTunes and Photoshop as well, almost all day. So I like to save ram where I can. Any thoughts? UPDATE: I've been centering around chrome more recently and using firefox for testing. Dev isn't bad on Chrome and it's great at releasing memory when I close tabs. In retrospect, I think the best answer to this question is simply for me to buy another 2gb of ram.

    Read the article

  • Self-healing Cloud vs Failover Boxes

    - by IMB
    Now that self-healing cloud servers are becoming more and more popular, I am currently torn between the decision if I should setup a HAproxy failover for my VPS or if should save myself the trouble and just put my sites on a self-healing cloud server. Does it still make sense to setup your own failover system (HAproxy + 2 or more servers for example) when self healing cloud seems like a practical solution? They seem to do the same job or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Time Machine vs Source Control?

    - by Blub
    Finally got convinced to start using some kind of version control for my code instead of zipping down a copy of the project at the end of each day. Downloaded Tortoise SVN and used it to create a repository localy on my hdd. I've been using it for 2 days now but I have to say that using it is actually more hassle than just copying the project manually in explorer. Sure, you only store incremental changes but with the cheap disks of today I can't really say that's an argument when you only have small projects. I haven't realy found a quick way to browse the older versions of my files eighter. What I want is an infinite undo that is completely transparent while I code, if I save the file I want a backup. I don't want to check out, check in and don't even get me started on moving files. I haven't tried Time Machine for OS X but it looks like it's exactly what I'm looking for. Does such a program exist for windows? Preferably free and with some kind of tagging-system so I can tag a timestamp when the project is working etc. Maybe should add that I mostly work alone on a single computer. Update: Some of you asked why I want backup. Since I work alone it's mostly to allow me to quickly hack up a solution without worrying that something will screw up.

    Read the article

  • wireless repeater vs wireless bridge?

    - by Kossel
    Scenario: I have a ADSL modem inside the studio which is connected with some wired/wireless devices. but when I'm in the backyard with my laptop the wireless signal is very poor, so the connection is very unstable. I have an old belkin wireless router and I read that it can be useful in this scenario. after some search, it's compatible with DD-WRT, and seems setting it both wireless repeater or wireless bridge can do the job. but which is better for speed and stability or for my purpose they are the same? wireless repeater wireless bridge

    Read the article

  • Internet Explorer 8 Viewing PDF files vs saving them

    - by Andy Evans
    I have a user asking about viewing PDF files in Internet Explorer. When she clicks the file link on a website, IE prompts her to save the file, which she then has to open to read. What she's not seeing in the prompt is the ability to open the file without having to save it, or, just opening the PDF automatically. She and a few others are having the same problem, while a majority of the user do not have this problem. All of the users have IE 8 and Adobe Reader 9 installed. I've verified that Adobe Reader's "Display PDF in browser" option is enabled. What else should I check?

    Read the article

  • Data Archiving vs not

    - by Recursion
    For the sake of data integrity, is it wiser to archive your files or just leave them unarchived. No compression is being used. My thinking is that if you leave your files unarchived, if there is some form of corruption it will only hurt a smaller number of files. Though if you archive, lets say all of your documents, if there is even the slightest corruption, the entire archive is unrecoverable. So whats the best way to keep a clean file system, but not be subject to data corruption.

    Read the article

  • File Server - Storage configuration: RAID vs LVM vs ZFS something else... ?

    - by privatehuff
    We are a small company that does video editing, among other things, and need a place to keep backup copies of large media files and make it easy to share them. I've got a box set up with Ubuntu Server and 4 x 500 GB drives. They're currently set up with Samba as four shared folders that Mac/Windows workstations can see fine, but I want a better solution. There are two major reasons for this: 500 GB is not really big enough (some projects are larger) It is cumbersome to manage the current setup, because individual hard drives have different amounts of free space and duplicated data (for backup). It is confusing now and that will only get worse once there are multiple servers. ("the project is on sever2 in share4" etc) So, I need a way to combine hard drives in such a way as to avoid complete data loss with the failure of a single drive, and so users see only a single share on each server. I've done linux software RAID5 and had a bad experience with it, but would try it again. LVM looks ok but it seems like no one uses it. ZFS seems interesting but it is relatively "new". What is the most efficient and least risky way to to combine the hdd's that is convenient for my users? Edit: The Goal here is basically to create servers that contain an arbitrary number of hard drives but limit complexity from an end-user perspective. (i.e. they see one "folder" per server) Backing up data is not an issue here, but how each solution responds to hardware failure is a serious concern. That is why I lump RAID, LVM, ZFS, and who-knows-what together. My prior experience with RAID5 was also on an Ubuntu Server box and there was a tricky and unlikely set of circumstances that led to complete data loss. I could avoid that again but was left with a feeling that I was adding an unnecessary additional point of failure to the system. I haven't used RAID10 but we are on commodity hardware and the most data drives per box is pretty much fixed at 6. We've got a lot of 500 GB drives and 1.5 TB is pretty small. (Still an option for at least one server, however) I have no experience with LVM and have read conflicting reports on how it handles drive failure. If a (non-striped) LVM setup could handle a single drive failing and only loose whichever files had a portion stored on that drive (and stored most files on a single drive only) we could even live with that. But as long as I have to learn something totally new, I may as well go all the way to ZFS. Unlike LVM, though, I would also have to change my operating system (?) so that increases the distance between where I am and where I want to be. I used a version of solaris at uni and wouldn't mind it terribly, though. On the other end on the IT spectrum, I think I may also explore FreeNAS and/or Openfiler, but that doesn't really solve the how-to-combine-drives issue.

    Read the article

  • TCP Windows Size vs Socket Buffer Size on Windows

    - by Patrick L
    I am new to Windows networking. When people talk about TCP tuning on Windows platform, they always mention about TCP Window Size. I am wondering whether Windows uses the concept of "Socket Buffer Size"? On Windows XP, the TCP window size is fixed. We can set it using the TCPWindowSize registry value. How about Socket Buffer Size? How can we set Socket Buffer size on Windows? Can we set it to a value different from TCP window size?

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.5 log to: sql server vs file

    - by stacker
    I want to know if get IIS to log directly to the sql server is resource costive, and a better solution maybe generate log files, and each hour import this files to sql server. Does it VERY big cost to log to sql server each request directly? The pages are open connection to the database anyway for each request.

    Read the article

  • Serving Compressed Files Amazon vs Lightty

    - by tike
    We are currently using amazon CloudFront to serve css and according to Amazon itself, Amazon CloudFront can serve both compressed and uncompressed files from an origin server. But while i check compression it shows everything fine in origin server but it shows notcompressed checking in the link with cloudfront. e.g. http://www.port80software.com/tools/compresscheck.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgsrv.mydomain.com%2Fen-UK%2Fsomething.css it would result with Compression status: (gzip) while with cloudfront http://www.port80software.com/tools/compresscheck.asp?url=http%3A%2F%2hereisit.cloudfront.net%2F%2Fsomething.css Compression status: Uncompressed Origin server is running lighttpd with mod_deflate however, allowed config is: deflate.allowed_encodings = ("bzip2", "gzip", "deflate") [i would think, putting extra allowed encoding wont affect as such.] Here i am clueless, what is the real issue.

    Read the article

  • Linux servers vs Windows IIS sense of usage "free" solutions

    - by Rob
    I wonder what is the sense of using "free" open source solutions for serious webstie applications? Crawled and read many testing of servers performance and there is one conclusion: IIS seems to be the best choice for high load applicatiom. I mean cost effective. Especially this concers to Nginx PLUS and LiteSpeed Users where subscriptions paid for e.g. LoadBalacer and extra support cost a lot in fact. I'm asking then where it's "free" then or "cheap" in this case? Assuming even little higher cost of dedicated servers with Windows still seems like Windows looks cheaper. At it's basic setup Windows 2012 with IIS offer much more than std LAMP, or other NGINX config.... Maybe am I missing sth ? I mean only general case for someone who did not already started his app. I know exactly that the cheapest solution is the one someone is skilled. Has anyone done already such real costs calculation for example scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Unmanaged Network Switch vs Managed Network Switch

    - by David
    Currently I have an unmanaged POE switch connected to a Linksys router. I am thinking of upgrading my POE switch to a gigabit POE switch, the only problem is that the switch that I want to get is a managed switch. So here's my question: with a managed switch, can I still connect all of my devices to it and have the devices request IP addresses from the DHCP server within the Linksys router or will the devices request IPs from the managed switch since I believe the switch has its own DHCP server as well?

    Read the article

  • Font rendering in Internet Explorer vs other browsers on Windows XP

    - by Ben McCormack
    I have four browsers installed on my Windows XP SP3 machine: Internet Explorer 8, Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, and Google Chrome. For whatever reason, fonts appeared to be rendered differently in IE than in the other browsers. It seems the fonts are anti-aliased in IE but not in the others. Why might this be? Is this an issue with the browsers or my operating system? I've noticed this issue on several Windows XP machines that I've used. While it may seem like no big deal, the lack of font smoothing in the other browsers keeps me from using them as my primary browser. Most importantly, what can I do to get the other browsers to render fonts smoothly?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >