Talk:IT Development/Technology committee meetings/Minutes 4 February 2014: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(resp.) |
(thanks tom) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: Related to this, "a server of 4GB is now being considered" - 4GB of what? RAM, HD, database size? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 14:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | : Related to this, "a server of 4GB is now being considered" - 4GB of what? RAM, HD, database size? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 14:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
:: RAM. The cost is quite severe though so I think it may be a hard sell. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | :: RAM. The cost is quite severe though so I think it may be a hard sell. --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 21:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
::: Thanks Tom. Is 4GB of RAM in a server nowadays really that expensive? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:05, 7 February 2014
Is there a report of the external consultancy recommendations? I'm not unsurprised to see the recommendation being more (Database?) resources; so I guess the next question is whether that cost is worthwhile? (i.e. is the service useful to the scale of thousands of pounds per year). --ErrantX (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)