[theforum] Summary: w.e.o and l.e.o Server Integration

David Kaufman david at gigawatt.com
Thu Jun 3 09:46:50 CDT 2004

Dean Mah <dmah at shaw.ca> wrote:
> A quick summary of the discussion.  My apologies if I have
> misrepresented anyone's position.
> [everyone's neatly summarized positions snipped]
> raq: [pathetic 486++ 20gig specs snipped]
> ServerMatrix: [...] minimum spec seems to be the 1.7 GHz Celeron.

seems odd to me that we even need to *debate* which servermatrix box to go
with, when this minimum box blows the doors off the current l.e.o. machine,
which seems at least adequate for the job.  i expect that even at this
extreme low end of server offerings, we're tripling processor speed and
quadrupling available storage - does anyone really think we won't have CPU
cycles or storage to spare with this box?

> It seems that if we pay a higher setup fee, the monthly fee is lower.
> There doesn't seem to be a yearly fee listed.

all true.

and wow!  just looked at the servermatrix page and it has been updated to
include even steeper monthly discounts, if you pay even higher setup fees.
i was a bit disappointed when i called their sales rep, and was told they
could not offer us discount, even if we prepaid for a whole year in advance,
but it looks like these deals serve the exact same need.  i think it is
*very* prudent of us to drop an extra hundred bucks for the setup, to save
$300-600 in monthly fees per year.

it looks like we can now get the low-end celeron for a paltry $49 per month,
if we shell out $300 for setup!  thats friggin great news.  at those rates,
i think we're best off getting a low-end l.e.o box now, and maybe adding a
second box for w.e.o later!  certainly it's clear that time is on our
side --later, the pricing may be even *more* attractive, giving us even more
interesting upgrade vs. add-a-box alternatives.

> I think that the one thing that we can agree on is to move the l.e.o,
> b.e.o, and d.e.o services to ServerMatrix.  Since there is still some
> doubt as to whether or not w.e.o will be integrated, I would suggest
> going with a smaller server.  There doesn't seem to be a clear
> indication of the long-term strategy or a time to resolution.  I will
> bring up the spec'ing of the server with sysadmin.

+1 to the smaller server, sooner, and deferring the w.e.o. decision/issues
for now


More information about the theforum mailing list