On 12 June 2011 18:42, Krishna Birth krishnabirth@gmail.com wrote:

n.b. I am re-posting with subject line corresponding to the original post, is that the way to respond to mailing list digests?

Yep :)

There was an item quite interesting.

This was from:

eweekeurope.co.uk

http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/liquid-cooling-gets-sun-co-founders-backin...

"Liquid Cooling Gets Sun Co-Founder’s Backing"

Thats cool; I understand large scale deployment of liquid cooled blades but just deploying a single liquid cooled server to host web sites isn't a good idea in my opinion because you are pushing your server hard to get more bang for your buck, which seems perfectly logical to me except if you are that desperate for power you should either buy a faster server in the first place, and/or have multiple servers for load balancing and/or fail over.

If performance means that much to you, any sane person would (IMO) have multiple physical servers because performance wouldn't be that important without uptime being equally important.

Just my two pence.