Talk:Server (computing)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge from Server computer

As per banners added July 2010 with no objections voiced, I have merged content from Server computer. --Kvng (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Energy consumption of servers - misleading ? No question misleading and incorrect

the text states that servers need 2.5 % of the energy consumption of the US - I think this will be a misunderstanding - it should be 2.5 % of the electricity needed, not of the whole energy consumption including fuels etc. (The source is quoted correctly, the misunderstanding is there.) Plehn (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is incorrect, as well. Actual 2010 consumption was 1.1-1.5% of electrical energy consumption worldwide, and 1.7-2.2% in the US per Jonathan Koomey report as reported in the NY Times, 7/31/2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/technology/data-centers-using-less-power-than-forecast-report-says.html?_r=0

Earlier estimates were flawed as they were for all corporate IT, including desktops and that inaccurate level has been repeated here. The ARM claim for 2020 is widely exagerated in the hopes of helping them make a commercial entry into the server market in 2014, so is thus, very biassed. It needs to be removed.

Moreover, this section lacks context in that the 6 billion cell phones in the world use more energy that all the servers in the world and pales in comparison to double-digit uses like HVAC, domestic hot water and transportation, to name a few. Finally, this section lacks perspective. It implies that this is an improper use of energy, whereas the Smart 2020 report estimates that ICT (Informantion and Communications Technology) *SAVES* 5 times its total carbon footprint in the rest of the economy (by doing things smarter). SomeGuyInOR (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Now biased the other way... section reads as if someone has an axe to grind. Would be good to restrict to facts about consumption and leave cell phones and hot water out of it. ---Ransom (67.91.216.68 (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC))

Bad Link

I clicked the link to "mini rack server" in the size classes section, it does not lead to another wiki page, or it has been deleted. - Adam Rees, user:adamrees89 11:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tidy-up

Have been a bit brutal. Sorry if your favourite bit got chopped, but think of the health and logic of the article as a whole before just chucking stuff back in. Snori (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Headless computer - no information about it

I got redirected to this entry from a "Headless computer" entry (found when searching the "Headless computer" term on DuckDuckGo), and now I see that there's no information here on a headless computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.138.43 (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Most servers these days are "headless computers", in that they do not have a traditional monitor, keyboard and mouse attached. They are usually accessed via ILO or remote console. - the term "headless computer" should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article if we have a redirect for it. --Versageek 21:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

servers

how many types of servers can i find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.195.224.11 (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011‎ (UTC)

Video music try AlejandraPerezEsmeradla (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hardware and Remote Admin

Codename Lisa, I feel that MMC is a stretch in this instance. If we're talking about protocols, it would be RPC and SSH. If we're talking about software, it would be MMC and bash/sh/etc. Thoughts? Interference 541 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Interference 541

Thanks for adopting the Bold, refine approach. Let's me separate our points of concerns:

• I believe the article must talk about means (be it hardware or software) that are tangible to the end-user; ones that the laymen could see, even if not understand. Also, the example must either have a source or a corresponding Wikipedia article. I see your latest contribution takes care of these.
• "Browser-based out-of-band management" is one the things that short-circuits my whole thinking. If something is browser-based, then by definition, it is in-band, not out-of-band, unless "browser-based" is misnomer for "using web browser as their front-end". In case of iLO and iDRAC, it is not the browser that supports the whole affair; the foundation is a piece of hardware, right? (I admit, this topic is at the edge of my knowledge base.)
• Out-of-band management is explained a couple of paragraphs further. We can't have an in-article content fork.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Codename Lisa,

Thanks for replying. The in-band/out-band aspect of iDRACs and iLos falls back to the chicken/egg argument over protocols or interface. I agree that you're correct in leaving that where it is.

With layman understanding in mind, would it be better to move the Out-of-band management reference up to the discussion of remote admin and reword things along the lines of:

"Remote management can be conducted via various methods including Microsoft Management Console (MMC), PowerShell, and SSH. In cases where advanced administration is needed, a hardware interface can be used to perform Out-of-band management through the use of IPMI or similar technologies. Among other things, this method allows remote changes to be made that would otherwise require physical presence."

Let me know your thoughts!

Interference 541 (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)