http://fargo.craigslist.org/sys/591 2428301.html Is this a

go fuck yourself

File: pay-attention-to-me-19-photos-15.jpg (39KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x600px

>>58376776
>asshat reply in 28 seconds! NEW WORLD RECORD

I guess, but you can likely talk him down since he needs it gone ASAP.

>>58376771
>and I figured actually administering a server would be the best way to learn.
Then install CentOS 5 in a VM. You'll be spending 99% of your time in a different location to the server using ssh anyway.

Like, there's no discernible benefit here.

I'd say its worth it

>>58378738
On what planet is it worth it? 2850s have been on the way out for the last few years and are over a decade old. The SC1425 is a legitimate waste of money. The 220s are outclassed by the most basic synology rackmount solutions at this point, but you can probably sell each caddy/cover/cables for ten a piece. The SCSI cards are an easy turn too. Just lie and say they're NOS.

>>58376771
It's just trash. Everything is over 10 years old. Slow as hell, power hungry (fully buffered DDR2 is up to 10W per module)
Even the management functions in those servers are outdated.

If you are going for Dell you want a Rx10 (R510,R610,R710, etc) or higher. Even a R510 is over 5 years old now

>>58376771
I wouldn't. The 2850's are Nocona based Xeons, and won't do 64 bit virtualization without some trickery.

You can find 2950's for ~$99 if you look. And even with shipping from Seattle, $200 is very reachable.

If you want storage, MD1000's are SATA/SAS based, and will take standard desktop drives.

>>58376771
>administering a server would be the best way to learn
That's very much correct.

You don't need server hardware thou. Servers are the same as your home computer.
Just install the operating system and software you want to learn to administer in a VM and you are good to go.

>>58376771
Its all trash that you would have to pay to dispose of. Anything you can do with it, you can do on a modern laptop. The only thing you'll get from it is a larger power bill.

>>58377417
any reason specifically CentOS 5?

>>58378928
why are servers so inefficient? normal consumer computers are much better because they can do same things with less power. weird that hosting companies are fine with wasting 1000000$ on power when it could work with less

>>58382063
>why are servers so inefficient?
Because if you want to have lots of ram in a system the address and data lines need to be buffered to reduce electrical loading on the MMU. For the example that anon gave.

>I think I know more than hosting companies
>we should all host things on shitbox desktops
good luck with that. i'm sure you know more them all

>>58382166
servers are a scam. a cheap computer can do everything that they can.