An open operating system can mutate already times. With Windows 2000 however gives it all services and services from a hand. That thus really saves time and for cash. More information under www.microsoft.com/germany/windows2000
And the text at the bottom means:
an open operating system does not only have predivide
If I knew german, id give a much better translation, sorry folks...
Try OpenBSD. Ive heard good things about its simplicity, ease of use, and security. Its about as secure as you can get in a default installation, and you can be sure to have the server components installed correctly (On the main OpenBSD.org website, they claim three years without a remote hole in the default install). Since you wont need X, or any other desktop "fluff", you probably will only need the default install, with a few minor tweaks to fit your needs.
If you want to use a linux distribution, I would recommend debian, ive used it in both desktop and server configurations, and I can say that its a wonderful distribution for either scenario.
If you havent heard already:
apt-get: allows you to install a package, upgrade a current one, or upgrade your whole system with a single command, handling dependencies and setup better than any other distribution.
Since ease of package management, its much easier to keep abreast of security issues (just apt-get distupgrade every night or so).
Look around at the multiple slashdot discussions on OpenBSD and Debian to see for yourself.
The best feature of this Bootable CD is in recovery situations... Im a professional System Admin and I cant say how many times this CD has saved my arse. Just boot from it, then mount the troubled drive and fix away. Ive bought a copy for home use, even though I'm a debian user!
For obvious reasons: - every box could nightly do a 'apt-get upgrade', insuring that the current versions of packages were installed (including security fixes) while maintaining complete homogeneity.
What i think you are excluding in your price/performance analysis is the architecture under which the SGI operates. It will give IMMENSELY more performance using all 8 CPU's than 8 separate Athlon systems, especially when you have tasks which can use the same memory spaces and such. If you check the top 500 supercomputers list, SGI is basically the top supplier of high-end supercomputers (obviously owing to the fact that they bought Cray a few years ago). If you look closely, their top end systems with only 256 CPUs beat the shit out of systems with 1000's. As with all "Supercomputers" vs. clusters, you pay for the ability to intercommunicate b/w the cpu's at an increadibly high rate, way beyond normal pc architectures... so in this scenario, the CPU is not the bottleneck. BTW, to stay on topic, I would suggest the Athlon for you real-time computations (for reasons already stated - better fpu, faster core...) *anyone get the reference?*
Slashdot Mirror
And the text at the bottom means:
If I knew german, id give a much better translation, sorry folks...If you want to use a linux distribution, I would recommend debian, ive used it in both desktop and server configurations, and I can say that its a wonderful distribution for either scenario.
If you havent heard already:
- apt-get: allows you to install a package, upgrade a current one, or upgrade your whole system with a single command, handling dependencies and setup better than any other distribution.
- Since ease of package management, its much easier to keep abreast of security issues (just apt-get distupgrade every night or so).
Look around at the multiple slashdot discussions on OpenBSD and Debian to see for yourself.The best feature of this Bootable CD is in recovery situations... Im a professional System Admin and I cant say how many times this CD has saved my arse. Just boot from it, then mount the troubled drive and fix away. Ive bought a copy for home use, even though I'm a debian user!
For obvious reasons:
- every box could nightly do a 'apt-get upgrade', insuring that the current versions of packages were installed (including security fixes) while maintaining complete homogeneity.
By using a less common platform, you are more prone to expose a bug or "feature" that hasent been already washed out of the system.
What i think you are excluding in your price/performance analysis is the architecture under which the SGI operates. It will give IMMENSELY more performance using all 8 CPU's than 8 separate Athlon systems, especially when you have tasks which can use the same memory spaces and such. If you check the top 500 supercomputers list, SGI is basically the top supplier of high-end supercomputers (obviously owing to the fact that they bought Cray a few years ago). If you look closely, their top end systems with only 256 CPUs beat the shit out of systems with 1000's. As with all "Supercomputers" vs. clusters, you pay for the ability to intercommunicate b/w the cpu's at an increadibly high rate, way beyond normal pc architectures... so in this scenario, the CPU is not the bottleneck. BTW, to stay on topic, I would suggest the Athlon for you real-time computations (for reasons already stated - better fpu, faster core...) *anyone get the reference?*