Brewology

http://www.stefandidak.com/office/index.php

From what I managed to work out, he's got something like 20,000TB's of storage.

And no, he doesn't work for NASA. fs8.gif

dude thats intense, 7 moniters, i wonder what its used for

I dont feel like making another topic but

most amazing thibg you will see

http://multi-touchscreen.com/perceptive ... f-han.html

Impressive, but not the best. This is in fact not a single computer, but many workstations that are linked together on a network. It's nice equipment and is no doubt worth several thousands of dollars, which leads me to my next point.... It's a waste of money for the use described.

pspruler quotes that the systems are used as a failsafe way for the user to multitask his different "projects". Good idea at heart, but why spend all of the money to network them? The ONLY benefit that comes from the usage of a network on those machines is that it is easier to save whatever the user is working on to the network memory and call it back on any of the computers. Now that is a good thing I suppose, but all computers on that network are in the same room, so there is no need to open them from a different computer anyways if the computer is right next to you.

Also, while the builder of this network has 32gb of ram, and tons of storage space, two of the computers on the system are only running single core Athlon64 4000+ processors. Is that good? Yes, it's a little better than good, but those are supposed to be used to spread the heavy usage of CPU power?... no... I wouldn't count on those machines for what sounds like big "projects" of importance. Dual-core AMD processors are far better for using CPU power at a higher level and more efficiently, but Intel is 1up on the competition right now. Keeping true to the Intel statement, the builder of this system also has "The Chieftec Arena 2000 case, housing a dual Xeon 5080" <--- smart, that's all I can say. Good system components for the server.

bottom line - if managed separately (without being linked on an in-home network), these computer systems would be able to utilize the same productivity levels as if they were on the network; HOWEVER, you'd be able to save the thousands and thousands of dollars that were spent on the network components (HDD space/ case/ fans/ cable/ routers etc.) and instead power up the individual computer workstations themselves (something using Intel core 2 duo extreme processors or the quad core for instance). The 32gb of network ram comes down to 4.5gb's of ram for each of the 7 workstations (including the notebooks = 3.5gb of ram) which makes me wonder how much ram the computers by themselves actually have installed on them but it is most likely the max that it can be 4- 8gb's of ram most likely for the computers themselves... which is good BUT... is it highly possible that the person isn't using a 64 bit version of XP? --- answer = yes, which means that XP will only read a max of 2gb of ram --- which also means that the workstations will bottleneck themselves along the line and the 32gb of network/ server ram is completely unnecessary b/c it is far too much and without reason for what this is being used for.

-DarkPacMan77-

Ok i didn't read all that yet DPM but he said that he could set it up so everything worked at the same time.

And it will, but they are individual workstations. Just look at the different keyboards/ mice. He also makes reference to the different machines and "brags" that they are connected via powerful server... which is true, the server is great, but not needed.

My post above is not for the average computer user, but for someone that understands a little more about computers (maybe you do I don't know and don't care) but my post basically points out that there is no need to network *7-9 computers for ONE person's personal use in the SAME room with such a powerful server and too much memory (in the sense of hard drive space AND network ram).

* I say 7-9 b/c technically the notebooks can be separated from the network and work independently by themselves, but they can also route back to the network wirelessly so it just depends on how much you are using at once.

-DarkPacMan77-

It for sure has high efficiency

True, but the workstations completely bottleneck the powerful server so about 60-70% of the server power is not even used. I would personally not measure efficiency by "how much" but rather "how much it does" and it's just my guess but I'd be hard pressed to find someone that needs two notebooks for any project... let alone 7 other workstations.

-DarkPacMan77-

lol copy cat

If other people are logging into the server and using them for business purposes... more power to them. That makes the system ram more ideal, however, I'm going to take into account that the particular setup I see is not being used by any special companies and base that theory off of the fact that the workstations he has on his own network (including the notebooks) aren't really the best quality that he could and should be using if he is interacting with companies that would depend on his services. Also, I read no mention of a backup generator or something either. That is a VERY small scale network, and although powerful, it really just seems like it was someone's personal ambition to have the most expansive computer setup that they could (for w/e reason).

I say that b/c ANYBODY with a NETWORK should NEVER put all of their workstations in the same room... let alone within 2 feet from one another. That defeats the purpose of a home network AND a business network and really... I don't think that any company would rely on that kind of tacky computer management. Putting all of that stuff in one room is easier for showing off, and honestly, it's neat, but I wouldn't show it off b/c I see flaws across the board.

-DarkPacMan77-

How good are the processors?

man I wish "im_on_teh_computer" was back, he'll probably be able to explain all this lol.

Whats there to explain. But it would be nice having him back.