Hi Sure not a problem, i am never really consider power any much in a rack since there a other stuff in my racks that sucks a lot more power then a p4 dual machine :) Per E-mail: per at norhex.com [1] http://www.linkedin.com/in/perqvindesland [2] --- Original message follows --- SUBJECT: Re: [CentOS] Intel Atom systems? FROM: Peter Arremann TO: "CentOS mailing list" DATE: 23-05-2009 20:55 On Saturday 23 May 2009 02:15:54 pm Per Qvindesland wrote: > I am not so sure that I would go for something with an Atom processor > installed if it is going to be on 24/7 then I would rather if price > has to be low, look at building a machine with a p4 dual core, they > are really cheap and don't mind being on 24/7 after all Atom has half > the processing speed as a pentium m processor. > > Per Per, sorry to be so direct - but in my opinion that's a horrible recommendation because within a few months, you spent more on power than the system costs... Even with speedstep properly configured, you're going to burn a lot more power on any P4.Doing the same basic file and print services, the Atom boxes we built used around 35W average vs 140W on the P4 dual cores that they replaced. Only had one failure so far but we think that was user error - something seems to have blocked the fan because all other systems had lots of dust in it and the failed unit was perfectly clean.... Overall, the Atom boxes worked great for us. We didn't have a specific reason not to choose VIA, atom boards were just easier to find, at least when we were doing this. Can't help you with a specific model board though since we only needed a single lan port... Peter. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.norhex.com/# [2] http://www.linkedin.com/in/perqvindesland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090523/82ff698e/attachment-0004.html>