data redundancy

[Gilligan]

i checked the power usage of the server and the cooling fans for it.  Servers are energy hogs.

Sounds to me like you had something way over kill.  My server is about as big as a tall coffee cup and draws near nothing for power.

Well, technically that isn't a "server"... that's a NAS at best.

[GraphicDisorder]

i checked the power usage of the server and the cooling fans for it.  Servers are energy hogs.

Sounds to me like you had something way over kill.  My server is about as big as a tall coffee cup and draws near nothing for power.

Well, technically that isn't a "server"... that's a NAS at best.

Ya man I dunno how it serves me web pages from anywhere in the world then.  Or how it serves my files from to me from anywhere in the world.  Or how it serves all our computers files.  Or how it's actually got the term server in the product name at all.  You certainly know more than HP and Microsoft, right?  Haha

[mk162]

what I had was a rackmount server.  You can technically install MS Server on any machine, if it has the resources.

I decided to go the cheap route and go p2p, it's easier to setup for a non-technical person like me...and it's easier to work on...it's also a crapload quieter.

[Admiral]

we upgraded to a 5disk Synology NAS recently, I am going to setup the old 2 disk one at home and have it sync nightly to the one at work for backup

amazon s3 is just too expensive for backup, perhaps Backblaze is cost effective, this is something I will need to figure out in January

[ScreenFoo]

i checked the power usage of the server and the cooling fans for it.  Servers are energy hogs.

Sounds to me like you had something way over kill.  My server is about as big as a tall coffee cup and draws near nothing for power.

Well, technically that isn't a "server"... that's a NAS at best.

Ya man I dunno how it serves me web pages from anywhere in the world then.  Or how it serves my files from to me from anywhere in the world.  Or how it serves all our computers files.  Or how it's actually got the term server in the product name at all.  You certainly know more than HP and Microsoft, right?  Haha

HP and Microsoft are good at getting money out of people.  Sure, they have talented people--but it took Microsoft YEARS to even begin to rip off enterprise style *nix software--and poorly at that. 

I'll give Apple props for that--at least they quit posturing and just stole something that works properly, and put their fancy graphics over it.   

[Gilligan]

I'm sure given it's a real server he can also run AD, real DNS, terminal services, maybe he could opt to run Exchange on that server.

I go into many offices that label a box a server, but putting a fancy sticker on it doesn't do much for what it can do on the inside.

I'm with Foo though... I'll stick to the *nix boxes for quasi servers if not all out full blown enterprise class ones.  I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around why MS thinks it's necessary to run a full blown GUI on a "server" when one should never really be physically logging into it.

[GraphicDisorder]

I'm sure given it's a real server he can also run AD, real DNS, terminal services, maybe he could opt to run Exchange on that server.

I used to run Advanced Server on a $400 Compaq computer.  I guess thats a "real server" by your standards.  Listen I know the difference but the fact is anything that serves a file could really be qualified as a server.  You wanted to get "technical" so here is the technical definition for you: 

A computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.

I go into many offices that label a box a server, but putting a fancy sticker on it doesn't do much for what it can do on the inside.

I'm with Foo though... I'll stick to the *nix boxes for quasi servers if not all out full blown enterprise class ones.  I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around why MS thinks it's necessary to run a full blown GUI on a "server" when one should never really be physically logging into it.

I will tell you why MS has a GUI and this is just 1 example.  It's because secretaries with mild computer knowledge may get appointed to run a network or portion of it.  When I attended school to get my MCSE I was often in class with several people from the company Eastman (Kodak).  This company was notorious for being a company that promotes within and these people know windows desktops.  They wouldn't know the first thing about any flavor of Nix or how to use it and you know it.  Teaching them would glaze 99% of them over before the first break in class.  But teaching them Active Directory, permissions, sharing, etc wasn't near as hard with a GUI for them.  Doesn't make windows better, but in that circumstance it sure does. 

[Gilligan]

I'm sure given it's a real server he can also run AD, real DNS, terminal services, maybe he could opt to run Exchange on that server.

I used to run Advanced Server on a $400 Compaq computer.  I guess thats a "real server" by your standards.  Listen I know the difference but the fact is anything that serves a file could really be qualified as a server.

Actually that is what I would call a quasi server... same software but not on enterprise class hardware therefor it's really not as stable as it should be to be called a true "server".  FYI, I run a quasi server at my house and shop.

I go into many offices that label a box a server, but putting a fancy sticker on it doesn't do much for what it can do on the inside.

I'm with Foo though... I'll stick to the *nix boxes for quasi servers if not all out full blown enterprise class ones.  I am still having a hard time wrapping my head around why MS thinks it's necessary to run a full blown GUI on a "server" when one should never really be physically logging into it.

I will tell you why MS has a GUI and this is just 1 example.  It's because secretaries with mild computer knowledge may get appointed to run a network or portion of it.  When I attended school to get my MCSE I was often in class with several people from the company Eastman (Kodak).  This company was notorious for being a company that promotes within and these people know windows desktops.  They wouldn't know the first thing about any flavor of Nix or how to use it and you know it.  Teaching them would glaze 99% of them over before the first break in class.  But teaching them Active Directory, permissions, sharing, etc wasn't near as hard with a GUI for them.  Doesn't make windows better, but in that circumstance it sure does.

But not a single one of those tools should be run from the server itself.  You should be running those tools from another machine and connecting them to the server.

Which of course *nix has those exact same tools.  If you can't teach them to run the tool in *nix, then you can't teach them to run it in windows either.  I would also suggest that that statement is completely accurate.  Those people likely had/have no business in those classes, and you know that.

[GraphicDisorder]

Actually that is what I would call a quasi server... same software but not on enterprise class hardware therefor it's really not as stable as it should be to be called a true "server".  FYI, I run a quasi server at my house and shop.

Since you are the worlds for most expert know it all you should lobby for a definition change.  I mean I have seen some enterprise stuff pretty unstable before, are those quasi servers too?  The definition doesn't suggest it's stable or not, it suggests it's function.  So you could make about anything be a server if you like.  In fact you should be smart enough to know stability often comes from the load on it/number of users/what it is serving.  A "server" serving files to the size of most of the shops here could be very stable with very little resources, and you know it.   

But not a single one of those tools should be run from the server itself.  You should be running those tools from another machine and connecting them to the server.

Should be?  People always do things they "should" right?

Which of course *nix has those exact same tools.  If you can't teach them to run the tool in *nix, then you can't teach them to run it in windows either.  I would also suggest that that statement is completely accurate.  Those people likely had/have no business in those classes, and you know that.

Of course nix does, but people don't do well always with change.  I mean there are people that shouldn't screen print, embroider, run a business, walk in the street, or otherwise but they do.  That's life. 

[Gilligan]

We ARE talking about MY definition right?  I did say "That's what *I* call...

Anyway, if they are taking classes then they can be taught to do it right.  Have you ever looked at AD?  Not exactly something that someone that is comfortable with a "start" button and MS Word is going to be able to just hop right into and be able to wrap their heads around it.  It is enough of a drastic change that it might be even easier to hand them the tools to a *nix machine and let them add new users via the web interfaces that LDAP utils can provide in *nix.

My point is that just because you can get around and are comfortable in Windows (or Linux) doesn't mean you can jump into an LDAP interface and be ok with doing any functions in there.  Just like a person that knows windows and ms paint isn't going to just hop into PS and be able to use it worth a damn for anything other than applying filters.

I do agree with your last line: "I mean there are people that shouldn't screen print, embroider, run a business, walk in the street, or otherwise but they do.  That's life."  and my hopes are that all the rumors of suicide due to the pending "end of world" were true... just a few less of "those" people walking the streets.

[ScreenPrinter123]

<gun shot sound> And they're off!

[Gilligan]

<gun shot sound> And they're off!

Looks like at least one of you guys missed the rapture as well. :p

[ScreenPrinter123]

I don't think the Mayans were aware of an invented, unbiblical Protestant idea called the rapture, but I don't know enough to be sure ... Probably know as much as anyone commenting on it today pretending to know something they don't.  Then again there are crazier things - Constantine and Moses lived to 700 years old since Constantine was alive in 1000a.d. requesting more copies of the bible to be made for his growing metropolis (oh wait, I mean determining the canon of the bible that had already been closed by Pope Damasus I in 381, 620 years prior) - wink.

Now that that commercial is over, ill let you and Brandt get back to business :-).

Merry Christmas boys and girls.

[ScreenFoo]

<runs across the track and smacks the mechanical rabbit>

As far as the definition debate goes, I think of Wiki's first line as quite reasonable:  In most common use, a server is a physical computer (a computer hardware system) dedicated to run one or more services (as a host),[1] to serve the needs of the users of other computers on a network. Depending on the computing service that it offers it could be a database server, file server, mail server, print server, web server, gaming server, or some other kind of server. 

To get to the actual differences here, extremely efficient GUI's have been in existence for decades now--but with either mainstream flavor of 'window manager' (what many consider erroneously to BE the OS) is a bloated feature dump, getting bigger and bigger, version after version.   If you're wondering why people would be put off by large amounts of graphics intensive computing on a 'server' (whatever your definition is,) -- the server has been the last bastion of truly performance-based computing without any *inherent* need for the resource waste inherent in GUI-only systems.   The server does not need the GUI to perform it's tasks adequately, and in fact, the GUI is taking up valuable resources.

For those who may have never had the privilege of a computer history lesson from someone who didn't sell software, Xerox/PARC developed the GUI--not Apple and not Microsoft. 
They tested it with monkeys.  The goal was not performance based, but rather the sacrifice of what were, at the time, vast amounts of performance for large gains in ease of use. 

I'm not saying the GUI is a horrible invention, any more than the television is.  I wouldn't want to give up previews, interactive tools for layering, or try to map algebraic coordinates to 'draw' a design with weighted curves.  I occasionally see a TV show that doesn't make me wish I had that portion of my life back.
But it could certainly be argued that the massive amount of GUI integration in every facet of computers as well as embedded devices has led to ignorance and the waste of resources, similar to some of the effects of television at the scale it is consumed--or even what is considered 'internet' now, but in reality, is just a digital form of the same type of 'service'.

Perhaps what Kevin was trying to get at makes more sense, perhaps you're even more confused now.  I apologize if it's the latter.

[Gilligan]

Sorry N.O. Boys... I'll check back after 3.13.13 (I think someone referenced Revelations having something to do with THAT "end of the world.")

Foo, you nailed it.  It's insane that what once happened so clumsily on an OS that could comfortably fit in a 2 gig partition and 512mb of ram (windows 2k) now needs over 120 gigs and 4 gigs of ram to accomplish pretty much the same clumsy task.  And barely 10 years passed.

Even on the high end is photoshop better than it was 10 years ago?  Yeah... Is it 8-60 times better?  Not really.  I bet Dan turned out some great work 10 years ago and if you put it up side by side you probably couldn't tell which version was used.  Though I'm sure it's faster and easier for him to get the same results... but do they happen 8-60 times faster (and not due to hardware, because if you put PS 6 or 7 on a modern system it would likely be as fast as CS6 (32 bit) on the same system.)  Some of the tricks and tools they upgraded I'm sure help.  But not as much as the resources they are hogging up.

Even in such a "graphical" task some things don't need such a GUI... resizing to 600x800 doesn't require you to see the image, this is why linux has command line tools to accomplish such tasks and why PS has "batch processing", though the command line tool runs circles around PS's batch processing on the same hardware.  Unzipping files doesn't need a GUI.  The list is many... but like Foo said, I'm not looking to go back to Command Line Only... but there are tasks where the GUI just gets in the way and hogs up way too many resources for it to make sense.

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine to see such simple things get so bloated.  I download things that are 100+mb in mere seconds and I think of how these things are just put out there so nonchalantly and no one bats an eye at downloading them and I go back 15 years in how that would have literally taken me a week to download.

I remember when Adobe After Effects (key frame animator/editor) as a 70mb download.  It did incredible things back then and now it is 3gigs.  Yet, not even close to that much more impressive.  It's impressive but the size shouldn't be exponentially larger than the improvements.

If some how hardware would have been halted at 10 years ago, I fully believe that we wouldn't be THAT much further behind in what bells and whistles they would be programming in but at a WAY more efficient rate.

All this cheap powerful hardware has just made programmers lazy and with updates/patches so easily downloaded/handled they have also become more sloppy.  It drives me crazy.  Technology got better and our products had to rise to match, but in the program world the opposite happened.