[OAM-talk] Moving forward (was: Completing the OAM PSC electionprocess)

[Anthony]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Serving would certainly be an issue if we got 120 desktop machines with
> 250
> > gigs each (which we could probably find in the trash cans of some
> > organizations).
>
> If you can find 120 rack mountable desktop machines with 250GB each in
> them and find a place to put them in a rack somewhere, we can
> certainly put them to use ... would make a nice processing cluster
> actually if they had reasonably modern processors.
>

Rack mountable would be harder to come by.  And "certainly put them to use"
isn't exactly the kind of thing that motivates me to find them.  And, I
think you're greatly underestimating the cost to power 120 old, used, rack
mountable desktop machines.  They're in the trash can for a reason.  It's
cheaper to buy a new one than it is to pay to keep the old one on 24/7.

> So, it's not *just* disk and bandwidth.  But if CPU isn't an issue, 8
> > servers @ 4 terabytes each seems like about the sweet spot in balancing
> > cost, space, and power consumption.
>
> On what are you basing that?
>

www.pricewatch.com?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> Why can't you just have one of those cool firewalls which redirects the
http request to a particular
> machine depending on the url?

Or even cheaper, serve tiles using a protocol that allows 302 redirects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://openaerialmap.org/pipermail/talk_openaerialmap.org/attachments/20091209/58e2d161/attachment.html>