Opinions regarding Windows versions.

    First, a very big "Thank you" and "Nice work" to Marcel van Herk and Lambert Zijp for all their efforts with the ConQuest project. I am repeatedly astonished at the robustness of ConQuest, the number of options included and responsiveness of its developers. Thank you.


    I have been using ConQuest in a nuclear medicine departement for nearly four years, running on a dual 500MHz XEON Dell workstation, 1GB RAM, SQL 7.0 database (Desktop Ed.) with Windows 2000 Pro. The time and resource have come to upgrade the hardware - more power/ram to host multiple servers for research as well as clinical, more redundances in server hardware and storage, etc. I am considering which version of Windows to use for the new system(s) - seems like I should move forward from Win2K, Windows 2003 seems like over kill for the price - don't need Active Directory, Domain controller, etc., WinXP is already a "last generation" OS but probably would suffice, anyone had a chance to try Vista yet? Opinions would be appreciated.
    Scott

    I ve set up a system ( P4 3GHz and 2 GB ram ) with win xp pro and MsSQL2000 as a database and it s running fast and stable.
    I wouldn t absolutely advice the use of vista, cause of lack of experiences and apart from that it consumes more hardware resources than Xp. You even can give Xp most of the new functions of vista, what I ve read in forums.
    In total, for working at home, I prefer w2k, running absolutely stable and fast.

    My experience is that NT4, Win2000, XP, Win2003 run equally well.


    MsSql is certainly the best tested. MySql works fine (note the initialize database bug, use dgate -v -r in init, the GUIs uses dgate -v -r1, omitting indexes), but appears to fail (very) rarely under heavy load. MsSQL works very reliable and fast as long as server maintenance is done. Even the dbaseIII driver works fine. See test results in manual. What kind of archive do you plan (how many TB).


    Marcel

    Thanks Marcel, now I feel bad about my last post, was not directed to you, intended as simple "what is everyone using?"
    Right now I have about 300GB stored but using NTFS file compression at roughly 2.5to1 - so around 750GB. We are installing a PET/CT in the next few months and our storage requirements will ramp up - database requirements as well given PET and CT's single frame/file. I am preparing an array with the capability of 2.5+TB - will start at 1TB and grow the array as we go. We had e-mailed in the past about NTFS file compression which as not seemed to cause any problems. Any downside to NTFS compression you can see other than CPU utilization?
    Cheers.

    Sorry Marcel, I'm even slower than usual tonight.
    I am missing the significance of -r vs -r1 --- or is "dgate -v -r in init" the full command. I am looking at "dgate -?" and not piecing this together.
    I ran into the Windows2003 and SQL 2005 GUI browser issue - so I backed up and used Win2k server with another project. Will try Win2003 R2 and report back.

    @Scots
    Well, Yo ve asked what evrybody is using.
    I friend of mine is using w2003 with Mysql with roundabout 1TB without any greater probs.
    Our cooperating hospital usues linux with postgres as a database without any probs.
    I ve poticed that more hospitals are tending to use linux cause its a lot cheaper and as well stable.
    Our system has 1,5 TB capacity, 800 GB used at the moment.

    Scoot39s: dgate -v -r1 means regen database but omit index creation. This is necessary for (no longer supported) dbase through ODBC, but is by accident used for mysql native client. Will be fixed in next release. So if you install with native myswl client, run dgate -v -r instead of re-initialize the database from the GUI.


    Marcel

    I posted this under another topic but thought I should repost it here...


    I am running


    -Conquest 1.4.12c
    -MySQL 5.0.27 Community Version
    -Native MySQL driver
    -MS Windows 2003 Standard R2 x64 Edition
    -SATA Array (3ware) with 9 TB of total storage available


    ~7.9M Images
    ~3 TB of storage


    Running like a top!!!


    Thanks Marcel!

    3ware 9550sx SATA RAID Controller


    16 ports


    I am configured with 15 - 750 GB drives in the array and the 16th as a hot spare.


    I have 2 systems....both use the same 3ware controller (actually all hardware is identical) 1 has 32 bit Windows 2003 Std and the other is 64 bit.


    I am very happy with them so far......

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login