Search Results

Search found 21322 results on 853 pages for 'vs 2008'.

Page 363/853 | < Previous Page | 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370  | Next Page >

  • Intel Pentium 4 vs. Faster Celeron

    - by Synetech inc.
    A few months ago my motherboard died, so I bought a used computer that had a 2.4GHz Celeron. My old system had a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, so now I’m trying to decide which CPU to use. Obviously a P4 is preferable over a Celeron, but the Celeron is (significantly?) faster than the P4. I’m wondering if the faster Celeron might be better for certain tasks (ie, stronger but dumber is better at some things than smarter but weaker). I tried Googling for some reviews and comparisons for graphs to get a clear depiction of which is better overall, but found nothing that helped. (I did manage to find one page that indicates (apparently by poll, not benchmark) that the Celeron is better.) So which CPU should I use? Does anyone know of some graphs that I can use to compare the two?

    Read the article

  • AWS VPC ELB vs. Custom Load Balancing

    - by CP510
    So I'm wondering if this is a good idea. I have a Amazon AWS VPC setup with a public and private subnets. So I all ready get the Internet Gateway and NAT. I was going to setup all my web servers (Apache2 isntances) and DB servers in the private subnet and use a Load Balancer/Reverse Proxy to pick up requests and send them into the private subnets cluster of servers. My question then, is Amazons ELB's a good use for these, or is it better to setup my own custom instance to handle the public requests and run them through the NAT using nginx or pound? I like the second option just for the sake of having a instance I can log into and check. As well as taking advantage of caching and fail2ban ddos prevention, as well as possibly using fail safes to redirect traffic. But I have no experience with their ELB's, so I thought I'd ask your opinions. Also, if you guys have an opinion on this as well, would using the second option allow me to only have 1 public IP address and be able to route SSH connections through port numbers to respective instances? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • FTP Sites vs Sites in IIS 7.0

    - by NealWalters
    We have one FTP site set up (and working) basically like the instructions here: http://www.iis.net/learn/publish/using-the-ftp-service/creating-a-new-ftp-site-in-iis-7 It shows up under "Sites" and then the name of our FTP Site. However, above "Sites" (in the left navigation tree view), we see a node called "FTP Sites". When we click on it, it says "FTP Management is provided by IIS 6.0". Can someone give me the big picture of why this node appears, and why IIS 6 is involved? Is is some backward compatible feature? I didn't build these machines, so don't know the reasoning of what was done before I arrived on the scene. Also, is the tree view icon for websites and FTP sites the same?

    Read the article

  • HP Laserjet "maintenance interval" vs "fuser life"

    - by marienbad
    I posted a question about the Laserjet 8100DN earlier here: http://serverfault.com/questions/139043/buying-an-old-laser-printer-what-will-need-to-be-replaced and from doing some more research I have a new question: I found the "maintence interval" -- "the interval at which you should install a maintenance kit" (which is a fuser and rollers), and it is...350,000 pages. BUT, when I look at the specs for an HP 8100 fuser, it says the fuser has a life span of 150,000 pages. What gives? – Will the fuser go bad after 150 or 350? ==== BTW I hope it's ok to ask another similar question in a new thread -- I'm just following instructions from my thread on the topic at Meta.

    Read the article

  • Dell EqualLogic vs. EMC VNXe [closed]

    - by Untalented
    We've been looking into SMB SANs and based on the competitive pricing I've been getting we're really liking these two array's. There are some pro's to both solutions, but I've unable to really decide which to choose. The EMC offers better expandability since you can buy an additional shelf (roughly $1200) and can add drives then to the array. However, the Dell unit is still very nice. Can anyone comment on their experiences with the two and thoughts on this? Also, to get the VMware Storage API support you need VMware Enterprise. How much additional performance does this provide? It's roughly $15k more than the Essentials Plus bundle we're looking at (this is a small environment [3 Hosts 1 Array].

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • upgrade visual studio to sp1

    - by vahid
    i'm going to install sql server 2008 on my computer,during preparing the installation there was an error like this: a previous release of Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 is installed on this computer. Upgrade Microsoft visual studio 2008 to sp1 before installing SQL Server 2008. So i should upgrade my visual studio to sp1, but i don't know how to do it. Please help, and Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Mac OS X Server mobile account VS Time Machine Network Backup

    - by elhombre
    I am installing a Server @home to manage the mac client's of my family. First I wanted to make time machine Backups over the internal network to an external Hard-drive which is connected to my Mac OS X Server (10.6) but when I read about the mobile accounts and it's synchronization features I got a little bit irritated what the differences between the two Services are. So where are the differences between a mobile account and a Time Machine Backup which is made over the network? Can the synchronized mobile Account be backup to an external Harddisk, if yes, how?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370  | Next Page >