[aprssig] Re: FindU Maps Quirky

[Steve Dimse]

On 2/9/05 at 7:17 PM Gerry Creager N5JXS <gerry.creager at tamu.edu> sent:

>by 'wolfpack' are you referring to a beowulf cluster?  No need.  'Wulfs 
>are generally computational rather than availability, clusters.  Unless 
>the hit rate gets a LOT higher, we don't need more'n 2-3 servers, IMNSHO.
>
As I think you meant to point out, even if we needed and could afford 100, there
is no need to use a cluster, they would simply be load sharing servers, each
standing alone. Since a single old and underpowered server handles the load now,
I'm sure even just adding one of more recent vintage would be more than enough.

>Current corporate changeout plans that I'm aware of for servers are 2-3 
>years.  I expect that to start flattening some, as I don't expect 5 GHz 
>Pentiums or Opterons any time soon... too hot to deal with.
>
This year is actually the first I have not upgraded the findU server, generally
happens between Nov and Feb. All have been dual processor, and went from 450 MHz
P4 to 800 MHz P4, to 1.2 GHz P4, to the present 2.8 GHz dual Xeon.

All cost 3-4 thousand, interestingly this year the same Dell server costs about
$100 more...to get a significantly faster machine would cost 6 or 7 thousand. So
much for Moore's Law ;-) 

At this point the findU machine is pretty much fully loaded at peak times, but
much of the load is the generation of the tiled maps like toporama and photo
relief. The photo relief will be the first thing to go if I need to reduce the
load. If I got another server, I'd want to keep both online, with one set up as
a database server, the other as the web server. Not going to happen this year
though...

Steve K4HG