Jump to content

stingwray

Dedicated Members
  • Posts

    1,455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by stingwray

  1. yeh it would be, but how do you tell the server to dumb the hostnames that it has in its record?

    A machine has one host name, to run multiple websites on a single server the application, as in Apache or IIS will look at the request and the respond with the correct website. So if I ask it for xyz.com then it returns xyz.com, but if asked for abc.com then it will return abc.com and so on.

    I can't see a way other than using an exploit for the server software to gain the list (that is practical).

    Also I can't see why you would need to do this.

  2. £68 for the 320GB or £0.21 per GB

    £57 for the 250GB or £0.22 per GB

    So if you really want to say you get more GB for less cost then the 250GB drive is a better option.

    However, for paying about 1p more per Gigabyte, you get an increase from 125GB per platter to 160GB which will give you better performance and you get a 16MB cache on the 320GB drive which also helps.

    There is a 250GB with a 16MB cache and that is £60 or £0.24 per GB so the 320GB comes out on top there.

    I would recommend the 320GB, if you want ultra speed though then look out for the 400GB 7200.10 model, as that has 200GB per platter which is another 40GB over the 320GB. However that will have a inflated price because of it.

    Out of interest the 750GB model is £270 which works out at £0.36 per GB which is quite a bit more.

  3. The price can add up quickly when you start adding up the equipment you need. But if you are future proofing your home fibre is the way to go. You can pick up a QLogic SANbox 5200 8 ports switch for £1,586.10.

    I don't doubt that, but when thats twice the price of your main computer and you only paid £70 for your last 8 - port gigabit switch its a little out of most peoples price range.

    I'll stick to Gigabit for the moment, it does the job fine.

  4. If they are close in price and your getting it from a reliable source then go with the Cat6, it'll probably last you longer.

    If you want cheapness then Cat5e can be found stupidly cheap. I'd go with Cat6 if you have Gigabit hardware or going to get gigabit soon.

  5. The 320GB Seagates give the best price and performace of the range, even over the 750GB. The 750GB drives are for SFF PCs where they have room for 1 maybe 2 drives or in SATA Servers where access times and multi-requests arn't important.

    The 3800+ is a good CPU, you should be able to overlcock it easily to 2500GHz by raisng the FSB to 250MHz, if you haven't got excellent ram then put a 5:4 memory divider on it so it stays at 200MHz. Have fun.

  6. Cat6 standands a lot stricter than Cat5e if you want to be able to certify your network Cat6. I've had some Cat6 from ebay and looked at it closely and they have made the length up wrong and thus defying the point of it being Cat6. You have to make sure you twist the pairs right up to the end of the socket almost and things like that.

    But to really answer you question like most people are here you can use it on any ethernet network together with Cat5e and on the same hardware.

  7. Ok, well the host is likely to use a block of IPs that they have bought, and find them out would be to hard, as you can find the IP of one site and then scan around that range.

    The only problem with that is that wouldn't give you what sites are hosting on them, as they would likely to be running more than one website on a server. So you would have a list of their servers but not sites.

  8. I can't think of a system of find all the sites hosted by a certain web host unless the web host has a list of them so that you can look at them. So do this I know because they like to show off their clients and to prove that people are using them.

    You could probably find out if a site is hosted by a web host by some poking around and looking at various information you can gain easily. But you'll have to do that on a site basis which I take it you don't want to do.

  9. If you told us the make and model of the drive then we could have had a look for you.

    Most DVD burners burn both types now but some early ones didn't.

    Cheap option, go and buy DVD+R, more expensive option but excuse to upgrade go buy yourself a nice Plextor DVD burning that does everything and anything.

  10. Well think of the problems of intergrating it into other systems like firefox, theres enough problems with simple html interpretation.

    Also the update system is likely to be closed source and if it was to work in firefox in a similar manner to how it does at the moment then parts of firefox would have to become closed (as in not over hauling the whole update system).

  11. You could always use that site that produces auto-patchers for windows, can't remember the URL.

    Really though this is not really that important. I use IE sometimes anyway, as Firefox has problems with some flash at the moment and IE isn't all bad.

    People should get off their high horse.

  12. Yeah, to do windows updates you need ActiveX control, which no other browser than IE supports.

    Plus the update method is intergrated to the IE program.

    But why do you need to use windowsupdate through the browser. Just set your computer to automatically download them and then ask to install them with Automatic Update.

    I just wish Microsoft would make their WSUS server software free for XP uses with multiple machines.

  13. I've finallly finished the download, patched and tested the ISO I made to mount and test it before I burned it.

    The quality is amazing, i've only watched the sketches but the menu system is awesome and I can tell that I'm going to enjoy this when I have the time to sit down and watch it.

    Shame the distribution hasn't gone as well as it could have done but definitely worth the wait.

    Thanks to everybody who has worked on it.

×
×
  • Create New...