[SAC] Server quote/discussions

Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) tmitchell at osgeo.org
Tue Feb 2 19:53:52 EST 2010

Alex Mandel wrote:
> Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
>> After chatting with Howard, I took a quick stab at spec'ing out a server
>> again just to get the ball rolling.  I'm sure it's not perfect, so holler.
>> A couple things to note or uncertainties:
>> * AMD vs Intel ?
>> * I'm not familiar with SAS drives and RAID stuff much in general, so
>> not sure if I choose things properly there.
>> * Seemed like some 2U options didn't allow as many drives, but maybe 4U
>> is not needed?
>> * OSL prefers Dell, so the added cost of going with them will encourage
>> expedient service from OSL and in their relationship with Dell.
>> * Not sure if OSL can get a better deal.
>> Comments, changes?  If anyone else is interested in specing out
>> something else, I won't be offended :)
> I'm close to a final quote now that is within budget and still gets us
> great performance. The last minor detail is how much total HD space we need.
> Is 500-700GB per server enough or do we need 1.2-1.5 TB per server. This
>  decision is swinging the quotes from over our budget to well under. The
> other confounding factor is that none of the 146Gb drive options are
> both 15K and 6Gb/s while the more expensive 300GB are both fast rpm and
> high transfer rate.
> The better drives would put us $1500 over budget.

I see no problem arguing to be slightly over budget if you felt it was
good value.  And I believe that more disk space is good value here
unless it kills performance somewhere else of course.  And unless a 3rd
cheaper 'storage server' was a better solution.  But either way, there
have been space limitation issues on and off over the past few years,
though nothing we haven't been able to manage by using telascience instead.

Just my two cents,


More information about the Sac mailing list