Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="joz" data-source="post: 415867" data-attributes="member: 70244">Ok, first of all this is not my field of expertise but a quad core for a file server? The disks will be way slower, and will form the bottleneck. I think a dual core will suffice. I would rather consider a (promise) RAID card instead. Maybe putting the drives in RAID-5 if money is an issue, RAID-0 if not. RAID-0 will be less CPU intensive then RAID-5 and therefore makes the extra RAID controller card (maybe) overkill. How many drives (or how much space) is gonna be used?If you think RAID-0 is not enough for your purposes then an extra tapedrive backup might suite you. This will mean physical swapping of tapes though, every day or some other regular time period.p.s.it's rotterdam... pride for my city <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="joz, post: 415867, member: 70244"] Ok, first of all this is not my field of expertise but a quad core for a file server? The disks will be way slower, and will form the bottleneck. I think a dual core will suffice. I would rather consider a (promise) RAID card instead. Maybe putting the drives in RAID-5 if money is an issue, RAID-0 if not. RAID-0 will be less CPU intensive then RAID-5 and therefore makes the extra RAID controller card (maybe) overkill. How many drives (or how much space) is gonna be used? If you think RAID-0 is not enough for your purposes then an extra tapedrive backup might suite you. This will mean physical swapping of tapes though, every day or some other regular time period. p.s. it's rotterdam... pride for my city ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification