> I looking for hardware recommendation for a Linux server which I want to
> be installed in our site.
> 1) Money is not an issue. (ok, it is, but not a major one)
> 2) Running SMB (Samba) as fast as spring 1998's hardware may (file
> server - that it's main goal).
> 3) Running other services (DHCP, fax server, etc.).
> 4) Intel based server preferred.
Just wondering, why the preference for Intel? That's going to be your
performance bottleneck, IMO.
I have built a LOT of servers. Granted, they were all NT. There is a
*wide* margin of difference between the load capacity of a DEC Alpha
box and any Intel box. If you are going to colocate everything on one
box, I don't think that will be a problem for you but you will buy
yourself more scalability if you buy an Alpha box up front. Don't
forget to raise your memory requirements if you go the RISC route.
Check out http://www.linux-hw.com ... this guy has some good deals on
LINUX-compatible servers. Even some of his workstations would make
Quote:> P.S. I already looked at HP' LC3 server. Any recommendations?
HP makes some great servers. However, I have had a complaint that for
the last 3 or 4 years they have been using the *cheapest* SCSI cables
I've ever seen. The insulation is like beeswax and you can scrape it
clean off with a fingernail effortlessly. Aside from that I've been
As for RAID controllers, Mylex adapters have given me the best
price:performance balance. I know I am posting from an IBM email
address but I don't get any bonus for telling you that IBM hard disks
have served me well. Seagate drives, despite their popularity in this
industry, are GARBAGE IMO. They run very hot and burn out quickly.
Western Digital drives run forever but they are very slow.