[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 10:42, Simon Waters wrote: ... > Of course no one is doing this commercially with old 386 boxes because > they deliver an order of magnitude less computing per watt, and about > four orders of magnitude less computing power per unit volume. And from > a management perspective it makes sense for them to limit the variety of > hardware. But I dare say if you have Carbon footprint to burn these > technologies could be made to run on older hardware. You have to have a lot of money to burn to throw away usable PC's in an attempt to improve your carbon footprint! We're not talking server farm here we're talking client farm! I'd like to have the computers I've got working together as a cloud - just for me and my family. If one goes down no worries, if I go mad and buy the latest multicore that can join in too. Offsite backups in a friends cloud, his in mine . This model works for almost all the offices I've worked in and from a management perspective (in an ideal world) theres still only 'one' PC to manage. OK when you get to several hundred machines hardware failures will become significant but no change there then - and at least you users wont be interrupted as they are now, a mere show of power and a pc will be available in a moment and not three days trying to reinstall their data that they did in their own pretty way. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html