Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: linux-help: January 2001:
[linux-help] Re: Minimum requirements
Home

[linux-help] Re: Minimum requirements

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: linux-help@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [linux-help] Re: Minimum requirements
From: Ryan Claycamp <claycamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:21:04 -0600
Reply-to: linux-help@xxxxxxxxx

At 10:01 AM 1/31/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> > My company is running an accounting/parts database program that crashes
> > every so often.  I told the manager that it can't be the server
> > because it
> > has a 120 day uptime.  The program support group sent a list of system
> > recommendations and I have a question about one.
>
>I'm assuming this application is running on the workstation, and one of them
>crashes?

The program is installed on the server, so it is system wide, and runs on 
the  workstations.  It locks up every so often and corrupts data.

> > CPU speed for server and workstations: Pentium 333 or better
> > RAM Workstations: 64 mg or faster (sic) (Double for Win NT)
> > RAM Server: 128 mgs or faster (sic)
> > Network Card: 100 megabit or faster
> > Network configuration: dedicated server
> > UTP Cat 5 cable
> >
> > Does a person really need a 100 Mbit network?  Would this make much of a
> > difference?
>
>Unless you are transferring large amounts of data across the wire (ie
>running a windows terminal server) I don't think that a 100Mbs adapter would
>be very noticable.  Running a switch rather than a simple hub would probably
>make more difference.

I am not up to speed on network terminology.  What is the difference 
between a switch and a hub.  The network currently is connected with a 12 
port hub.

Thanks,
Ryan

-- 
Visit the Guernsey Aviation web site: http://www.guernseyaviation.com/


-- This is the linux-help@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]