Search Results

Search found 8638 results on 346 pages for 'vs'.

Page 47/346 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • On Server Disk Storage VS SAN Storage

    - by Justin
    Hello, I am looking at buying three servers, and trying to figure out which storage solution makes the most sense in terms of performance and cost. Total budget is around: $10,000. OPTION 1: Dell servers with RAID 10 (4 Drives) each 7200RPM SAS 500GB, for a total capacity of 1TB. Each server is approx: $3000. Total storage then across all three servers is 3TB. OPTION 2: Same Dell servers with a cheap single drive no RAID for $2000 and go with a centralized SAN solution. The biggest problem is that I haven't been able to even find a SAN solution that is a reasonable price. Dell entry level storage servers are like $15,000. I am thinking just iSCSI, not fiber (too expensive). What do you guys recommend?

    Read the article

  • Dell R510 vs R710

    - by AX1
    Hello, the Dell R510 and R710 can both hold regular configurations (e.g. X5650, 24 GB RAM, etc.) and these usually come out to about the same price. Is there a particular reason why one would choose the R510 over the R710 or vice versa? There really appears a lack of differentiating factors. The only 'major' factor I found, which doesn't apply to me though, is that the R510 can hold up to 12 3.5in HDDs while the R710 (which is slightly more expensive) can only hold up to 6 3.5in HDDs. Maybe you guys have some input and bought either of these machines (or both) to shed some light on other differences and why someone should choose one over the other as the pricing is pretty much the same with my configuration. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Difference between "Redirect permanent" vs. mod_rewrite

    - by Stefan Lasiewski
    This is an Apache httpd 2.2 server. We require that access to this webserver be encrypted by HTTPS. When web clients visit my site at http://www.example.org/$foo (port 80), I want to redirect their request to the HTTPS encrypted website at https://www.example.org/$foo . There seem to be two common ways to do this: First method uses the 'Redirect' directive from mod_alias: <VirtualHost *:80> Redirect permanent / https://www.example.org/ </VirtualHost> Second method uses mod_rewrite: <VirtualHost *:80> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off RewriteRule (.*) https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} </VirtualHost> What is the difference between a "Redirect permanent" and the mod_rewrite stanza. Is one better then the other?

    Read the article

  • ZFS: Mirror vs. RAID-Z

    - by John Clayton
    I'm planning on building a file server using OpenSolaris and ZFS that will provide two primary services - be an iSCSI target for XenServer virtual machines & be a general home file server. The hardware I'm looking at includes 2x 4-port SATA controllers, 2x small boot drives (one on each controller), and 4x big drives for storage. This allows one free port per controller for upgrading the array down the road. Where I'm a little confused is how to setup the storage drives. For performance, mirroring appears to be king. I'm having a hard time seeing what the benefit would be of using RAIDZ over mirroring would be. With this setup I can see two options - two mirrored pools in one stripe, or RAIDZ2. Both should protect against 2 drive failures, and/or one controller failure...the only benefit of RAIDZ2 would be that any 2 drives could fail. The storage should be 50% of capacity in both cases, but the first should have much better performance, right? The other thing I'm trying to wrap my mind around is the benefit of mirrored arrays with more than two devices. For data integrity what, if any, would be the benefit of a RAIDZ over a three-way mirror? Since ZFS maintains file integrity what does RAIDZ bring to the table...doesn't ZFS's integrity checks negate the value of RAIDZ's parity?

    Read the article

  • 64 bit vs 32 bit

    - by user53864
    When I was doing my course MCSA, I'm taught the following: With a 32-bit processor only 32-bit operating system can be installed. with a 64-bit processor both 32-bit & 64-bit operating system can be installed It's said 64-bit os cannot be installed on a 32-bit processor. I just want to make sure the above points because recently I'm asked to installed Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprize and while installation it showed only x64 and it simply installed it. I was thinking all the computers in my office having a 32-bit processor. If so how it could be possible to install a x64 bit os on a 32-bit processor? or I'm wrong with the 1st point or the processor may be of 64-bit(I don't know how to check). I'm confused... One thing what I know the benefits of 64-bit over 32-bit is faster operation. If anyone could tell me other benefits, it could be helpful for me. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • 64 bit vs 32 bit

    - by user51737
    When I was doing my course MCSA, I'm taught the following: With a 32-bit processor only 32-bit operating system can be installed. with a 64-bit processor both 32-bit & 64-bit operating system can be installed It's said 64-bit os cannot be installed on a 32-bit processor. I just want to make sure the above points because recently I'm asked to installed Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprize and while installation it showed only x64 and it simply installed it. I was thinking all the computers in my office having a 32-bit processor. If so how it could be possible to install a x64 bit os on a 32-bit processor? or I'm wrong with the 1st point or the processor may be of 64-bit(I don't know how to check). I'm confused... One thing what I know the benefits of 64-bit over 32-bit is faster operation. If anyone could tell me other benefits, it could be helpful for me. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • HP DL160 vs DL360 for virtualization

    - by Chris
    Hi, We're planning to consolidate our infrastructure (a dozen servers). We'll buy two or three identical new servers who will be setup as a XenServer pool. Load balancing and HA tools will monitor the pool and vMotion VMs in case of failure/overload. I know that the DL100 series of HP servers is cheaper than the DL300 serie (in every sense of the word). As we don't need local storage (we have a SAN) and can live with a temporary down server (provided that Xen Server HA tools work as advertized), what are the downsides going with the DL100 serie ? Thanks, Chris

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 Disk Management Spanned Volume vs Striped Volume

    - by Kairan
    Im looking for a reason why a person would use a Spanned volume rather than a Striped volume? If my understanding is correct Striped: Faster read/write speed than spanned, but I "assume" more wear+tear Spanned: No speed benefit like striped, but data is written sequentially and fills up Drive1 before filling up Drive2, so it saves on wear+tear Beyond that Im not sure if there is any other deciding factor on which to use. Definition found below: A striped volume uses the free space on more than one physical hard disk to create a bigger volume. Unlike a spanned volume, a striped volume writes across all volumes in the stripe in small blocks, distributing the load across the disks in the volume. The portions of disk used to create the volume need to be the same size; the size of the smallest free space included in the striped volume will determine.

    Read the article

  • Reverse DNS does not match SMTP banner vs Reverse DNS mismatch

    - by MadBoy
    I have to make decision whether my Reverse DNS should match SMTP banner but Reverse DNS to DNS and vice versa stays different or vice versa. Which one to choose? I have an 2x Exchange 2010 server with one SMTP Sender with TMG 2010. TMG has 2 links connected so that we have 2 separate internet providers. The problem is I have no way to control TMG behavior on which link is used to send emails as it picks it randomly. I have 2 MX records: - mail.test.com which resolves to IP and IP resolves to mail.test.com - mail2.test.com which resolves to IP2 and IP2 resolves to mail.test.com This was done to prevent smtp banner issues but it provides problems with Reverse DNS if the server on the other side is eager enough to do comparison. But I've checked with Google and they also don't have that in perfect condition.

    Read the article

  • Copying files SSH vs sFTP

    - by jackquack
    I'm a bit of a unix noob, but this question seems super basic, yet I can't find an answer anywhere. Basically, to my knowledge, sFTP is just FTP over ssh. So, why can't I drag and drop files from one folder to another on the server side like I can on ssh. Why when I want to unzip a .tar in a server folder, does it first want to copy it to my machine and then back? Why can't it just unzip like it can when I'm using the command line. I know that when I use the command line it is using the resources of the remote machine, but why can't sFTP do that too? Is there a way to execute commands which I would normally do over SSH, but in a gui? I'm tried mapping to the drive to my own machine, I've tried so many sFTP clients that it's silly. Is there another class of program that I just don't know of?

    Read the article

  • Removable vs fixed mount points in Linux

    - by Dave
    What makes a mount point removable in Linux? I am using Gentoo Linux with Gnome 3.2, and I find it annoying that some of my drives (ex: /dev/sdb) appear as removable but not the others (ex: /dev/sdc, /dev/sdd). They are all in /etc/fstab, with the same options. They are all mounted properly at startup, they all work fine under my own folders /mnt/drive2 /mnt/drive3 /mnt/drive4. But only one of them (the first) appears in Nautilus (and in the Gnome 3 notification tray) as mountable/removable, not the others. Can I add options to my fstab to hide it? Or can I probe using udevadm or whatever? It looks strange to be able to remove/unmount fixed drives that I never need to unmount nor remove. Any pointer would be good, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 Standard vs. Web

    - by Andreas
    I'm currently comparing Windows Server 2008 versions to see what to use. What i found is this, that might affect me: RAM: 32GB. (the same) Sockets: 4 (the same) Remote Desktop: 2 (the same) IIS: true (the same) Application Server: Only standard. I will run my server as a single CPU (4 core) 8GB RAM, 2x raid1 web-server running: IIS Asp.net .Net 4 Third part mail server. (Only for sending mail from my web-application) SQL Server Express (My data is not more then 10 GB) Some minor applications for import and export of data. I might use external load balancer if I install a second machine in the future. My question is if you see any reason for me to go for standard that is 4 x price compared to web. BR Andreas

    Read the article

  • Using terminal vs KDE in linux?

    - by Ke
    Hi Im used to using nautilus within centos but have recently just got a VPS and quickly realising that using a KDE is unacceptable in this environment. Although I do find it so much quicker doing things like folder permissions in KDE rather than typing it all out in the terminal? Everyone I speak to says, use the terminal and I should learn this way as opposed to using the KDE, but theres certain things I just dont get How is it possible to make quick changes to scripts and viewing them in a browser etc , without a mouse or using KDE? and only using a terminal?? I am wondering how to develop websites just using the terminal??? How can it be quicker to type out/view permissions etc in the terminal when its instant and just a few clicks in the KDE? Any thoughts are much appreciated. I would love to understand the benefits but just cant seem to see them right now. Cheers Ke.

    Read the article

  • Intel i7 vs Xeon quad core processor?

    - by jasondavis
    I know the Xeon processors have been around for a long time and are mostly used in servers but I am curious, why do people not use the xeon's in a high performance desktop? As far as I know about the best desktop processor out there now is the i7 line. The i7's and xeons are both quad-core processors, what is the main difference in these? I just saw that the mac pro's are using the quad core xeons instead of the i7's

    Read the article

  • apache rewrite debian vs windows

    - by user1079002
    I have simple rewrite rules as I just learned about them RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^dl/(.*)/.*$ dl/$1/index.php [L] RewriteRule ^index.php$ upload.js [L] both are working on Windows for url localhost/upload/dl/mkdji/index.php, but on Debian works only second rule for url www.domain.com/index.php, but not for www.domain.com/dl/oksoks/index.php After dl is some random string. Obviously I'm missing something regarding directory depth, but don't know what. file htacces is in localhost/upload and root of domain.com folders. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • bash vs sh | What is the difference

    - by Saif Bechan
    In using i see 2 types of code #!/usr/bin/sh and #!/user/bin/bash I have Googled this and the opinions vary a lot. The explanation I have seen on most websites is that sh is older than bash, and that there is no real difference. Does someone know the difference between these and can give a practical example when to use either one of them. I highly doubt that there is no real difference, because then having to things that do the exact same thing would be just

    Read the article

  • Windows 2008 CAL vs RDS CAL

    - by g8keepa82
    Looking at the Win2k8 licensing page here and it appears to me that if I want to have a server to accept Remote Desktop Connections from say 30 users concurrently, I would require: Windows 2008 Server License & Windows 2008 CAL Is this correct logic? Or would I require RDS CALs instead? Or would I actually require RDS CALs on top of that? From what I can gather the RDS CALs are only required if I was to use the additional RDS services like App-V, etc. This question may have been answered here before but just wanted to clarify. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • Intel z77 vs h77 for intensive compiling, gaming [closed]

    - by Bilal Akhtar
    I'm in the market for a desktop motherboard (preferably ATX) that functions well with Intel i7-3770 Ivy Bridge processor at 3.4 GHz with LGA1155 socket. That processor is very fast, and it should handle all my tasks. My question is about the type of motherboard chipset I should choose to accompany it. I plan to use my rig for compiling and developing Debian package and other OS components, web development, occasional Android apps, chroots, VMs, FlightGear, other gaming but nothing serious, and heavy multitasking, all on Ubuntu. I do NOT plan to overclock, and I never will, so that's not a cause of concern for me. That said, I'm down to three chipset choices: Intel H77 Intel Z68 Intel Z77 I'm planning to go for H77 since I don't need any of the new features in Z77. I don't plan to use a second GPU and I will never overclock my CPU/GPU. My question is, will H77 based MoBos handle all my tasks well? Intel advertises that chipset as "everyday computing" but other sites say it's base functionality is the same as Z77. Intel rather advertises Z77 for "serious multitaskers, hardcore gamers and overclocking enthusiasts". But the problem with all Z77 motherboards I've seen is, they're way too expensive and their main feature seems to be overclocking, which won't be useful to me. Will I lose any raw CPU/GPU performance or HDD R/w with the H77 when comparing it to a Z77? Will heat, etc be an issue too? From what I've seen, Z77 motherboards have larger heat sinks when compared to H77 ones. Will that be an issue too, if I go with an H77 motherboard with no heat sinks for the chipset? The CPU will have a fan in both cases, of course. tl;dr When it comes to CPU/GPU performance and HDD r/w, is the Intel H77 chipset slower than the Z77? I don't care about overclocking or multiple GPUs, and for the processor, I'm set on Ivy Bridge i7-3770.

    Read the article

  • WAMP Server vs LAMP Server

    - by Rob A
    Hi All, Just wondering, I want to set up a basic web server at home. I run Windows (XP on the machine to be a server), however I also have Ubuntu on hand if I need to run that. Basically I was wondering if there are any large difference between WAMP servers and LAMP servers? I know the run virtually the same software, but does one perform better than the other? Are there hidden benefits of running it in Ubuntu instead of XP, or the other way around? I know its a basic question, but I havent done anything with Ubuntu, and Ive done about the same amount with web server-ing. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 Disk Mirroring vs Intel Fake RAID

    - 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

  • Why does bash invocation differ on AIX when using telnet vs ssh

    - by Philbert
    I am using an AIX 5.3 server with a .bashrc file set up to echo "Executing bashrc." When I log in to the server using ssh and run: bash -c ls I get: Executing bashrc . .. etc.... However, when I log in with telnet as the same user and run the same command I get: . .. etc.... Clearly in the telnet case, the .bashrc was not invoked. As near as I can tell this is the correct behaviour given that the shell is non-interactive in both cases (it is invoked with -c). However, the ssh case seems to be invoking the shell as interactive. It does not appear to be invoking the .profile, so it is not creating a login shell. I cannot see anything obviously different between the environments in the two cases. What could be causing the difference in bash behaviour?

    Read the article

  • PHP vs Batch file for mysql cronjob?

    - by mysqllearner
    Hi, My server details: OS: Windows Server 2003 IIS6 Plesk 8.xx installed (currently using Plesk to set the cronjob) I need your advice. I have 2 methods: Method 1: Using php + mysqldump, create databases backup files into gzip, and then send email with attachment (each databases has around about 25mb) Method 2: Using batch + mysqldump, create databases backup files into gzip, and then send email with attachment (same, each databases has around about 25mb) My questions: Whats the difference of using php file and batch file for cronjob? Which method is better in term of backup speed and send email, and (maybe)safety (e.g., lesser file corrupt occurance)? If i set the cronjob hourly, will it effect my web performances? I mean, lets say my website has 100++ users online now, and each user making transaction to MySQL, when I perform backup at my web peak hour, will it decrease the performances, like the loading speed, prone to errors etc?? (sorry for my bad english) P.S: If you need my php and batch file code, please ask me to post it here. I didnt post it now is because, its very simple and standard code.

    Read the article

  • Php.ini: Local Value vs Master Value (safe_mode, specifically)

    - by Philipp Lenssen
    I can change php.ini values on my Apache and restart to see them in effect via a script showing php_info(). However, one setting is causing problems: safe_mode. I set it to "off" in php.ini but php_info() still shows it as Local value: On Master value: Off How can I find out which local value is overriding the master value? There's no htaccess directive of that kind in the httpdocs folder in question... (I already downloaded all files php_info() claims to be additional .ini files parsed, but safe_mode is not set in them.)

    Read the article

  • Compressing with RAR vs ZIP

    - by FerranB
    A lot of people are compressing files with RAR, sending compressed files with RAR and so on. ZIP is more standard and works on all platforms. Windows users have ZIP included and linux users have no trouble with that file format. The tests I did sometime ago showed me that RAR compress better (some KyloBytes, no more) but not enough to use a non-free software when ZIP works on almost all the computers for free. Why do some people use RAR rather than ZIP for compressing?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >