[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Mx204 alternative
- From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 10:52:04 +0200
- In-reply-to: <CAAeewD-D_8xhn_B6c_bb917PsbKohzo=Z-3FwbqOj3kirZJUFw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CA+LTh5UUbV7YNFZOh0b88-4H46VvtksVgTyRRKttmqX0__cDSw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAPkb-7CgG+jOTPEuc7Vhrn-4fz_YeNPr+Yzk3aoapCNz+VqQOw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAAeewD-D_8xhn_B6c_bb917PsbKohzo=Z-3FwbqOj3kirZJUFw@mail.gmail.com>
On 2/Sep/19 10:28, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I think the Baldur's proposal works for organisation with few and
> highly skilled employees. But for larger organisation the CAPEX isn't
> relevant, it's the OPEX that matters and managing that magic linux box
> is going to be very OPEX heavy.
> Also XEON isn't cheap chip, Jericho/PE/Trio/Solar/FP all are cheaper,
> significantly so. XEON does cover some segment of the market, but it's
> not large one.
Agreed as well.
Years back, when we considered virtual routers on servers + a cheap
Layer 2 switch to run a proper but inexpensive "small router", the
servers always worked out more expensive to maintain over time.