Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based network file
server for a small SOHO LAN? Would you use Win2K or XP Pro? The idea
is to put disk resources in one machine for ease of maintenance and
reduced cost.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4093d6d1.96157276@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based
> network file server for a small SOHO LAN?

Not that easy to say unless you say what you plan to store on it.

If its just a single place to have most files and those are only
used ocassionally, almost anything would be fine, right down
to a Celeron 400 class system. The main advantage with that
level is that those are very decent for memory etc. The older
socket 7 systems can be pretty fussy about ram.

> Would you use Win2K or XP Pro?

XP, basically because its likely to have the user interface
a lot closer to what the other PCs are using, and thats
always handy for small non professional type situations
where you dont normally do much to the server very often.

> The idea is to put disk resources in one machine
> for ease of maintenance and reduced cost.

It doesnt really have to be a dedicated machine tho.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 2 May 2004 05:49:09 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based
>> network file server for a small SOHO LAN?

>Not that easy to say unless you say what you plan to store on it.

Just the usual stuff that home bodies store on PCs.

>If its just a single place to have most files and those are only
>used ocassionally, almost anything would be fine, right down
>to a Celeron 400 class system.

That's what I am looking for.

>The main advantage with that
>level is that those are very decent for memory etc.

How much RAM for Win2K and for XP Pro? I am using 384MB for Win2K so I
would expect 128 MB should suffice for a network file server.

>> Would you use Win2K or XP Pro?

>XP, basically because its likely to have the user interface
>a lot closer to what the other PCs are using,

I am used to Win2K so that is not an issue. I was thinking more in
terms of performance.

>> The idea is to put disk resources in one machine
>> for ease of maintenance and reduced cost.

>It doesnt really have to be a dedicated machine tho.

That's true. But if I use my machine then when I am busy with heavy
computing I would degrade performance. For example, I have about a
dozen Mozilla windows open and refreshing at all times, a market-based
charting package in real time and an active trading platform. That's
puts a load on the file system as it is, but what happens when my son
wants to play a DVD movie and my wife wants to look at some pics?

I intend to put 2 removable 3.5" hard drive bays, a DVD/CD-RW burner
and a DVD/CDROM highspeed reader on the box. That way we are covered
for just about anything we want to do.

Thanks for your comments.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Pentium 75, 32MB, Windows NT, IDE disks up to 135GB.

"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4093d6d1.96157276@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based network file
> server for a small SOHO LAN? Would you use Win2K or XP Pro? The idea
> is to put disk resources in one machine for ease of maintenance and
> reduced cost.
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Bob wrote:

> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based network file
> server for a small SOHO LAN? Would you use Win2K or XP Pro? The idea
> is to put disk resources in one machine for ease of maintenance and
> reduced cost.
>

I'd use Linux -- more bang for the buck.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:12:34 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>Best of luck on your server build.

Thanks for all the great advice.

How did you get more than 4 disk devices in one box? Did you add a
controller card?

Speaking of controllers, can anyone recommend a decent RAID setup for
a network file server. Can you get by without having to backup disks
when you have a decent RAID system?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 01:41:34 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based network file
>> server for a small SOHO LAN? Would you use Win2K or XP Pro? The idea
>> is to put disk resources in one machine for ease of maintenance and
>> reduced cost.

>I'd use Linux -- more bang for the buck.

How would the other machines running Windows access the file system on
such a Linux box?

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

spam@spam.com (Bob) wrote in news:4094af89.151638053@news-
server.houston.rr.com:

> On Sun, 02 May 2004 01:41:34 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based network file
>>> server for a small SOHO LAN? Would you use Win2K or XP Pro? The idea
>>> is to put disk resources in one machine for ease of maintenance and
>>> reduced cost.
>
>>I'd use Linux -- more bang for the buck.
>
> How would the other machines running Windows access the file system on
> such a Linux box?
>

There is probably more than one Linux solution for this. The most common one
is called SAMBA. Basically it emulates a Windows share (SMB) and makes the
Linux file system look like a networked windows drive to Windows clients.
It's used quite widely, from high-end file servers to tiny little NAS devices
with embedded Linux on them.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 12:50:44 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>> How would the other machines running Windows access the file system on
>> such a Linux box?

>There is probably more than one Linux solution for this. The most common one
>is called SAMBA. Basically it emulates a Windows share (SMB) and makes the
>Linux file system look like a networked windows drive to Windows clients.
>It's used quite widely, from high-end file servers to tiny little NAS devices
>with embedded Linux on them.

Actually that was a leading question. I am aware of SAMBA - we used it
at work - and the old PC-NFS ( I used it back in 1990 on an SGI
4D120).

My son will graduate from college this summer and come back home to
get started with his new life. He and I have been itching to install
Linux but because of his being away we never got around to it. Now we
have a ready-made excuse if we build a network file system.

This is what happens when you retire (semi-retire actually) - you
start looking for things to do. I really do not need a network file
server but it is something that I want to build from an old PC anyway.
I have one port left on my router that is just screaming to get
connected to something.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40940624.108272908@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> What is the minimum configuration for a Windows-based
>>> network file server for a small SOHO LAN?

>> Not that easy to say unless you say what you plan to store on it.

> Just the usual stuff that home bodies store on PCs.

>> If its just a single place to have most files and those
>> are only used ocassionally, almost anything would be
>> fine, right down to a Celeron 400 class system.

> That's what I am looking for.

>> The main advantage with that level is that those are very decent for memory etc.

> How much RAM for Win2K and for XP Pro?

256MB would be fine, you're unlikely to notice any real
difference between 256 and 512 in that particular situation.

> I am using 384MB for Win2K so I would expect
> 128 MB should suffice for a network file server.

Thats a bit low with XP. It should work fine tho.

>>> Would you use Win2K or XP Pro?

>> XP, basically because its likely to have the user interface
>> a lot closer to what the other PCs are using,

> I am used to Win2K so that is not an issue.
> I was thinking more in terms of performance.

There isnt anything in it with the OS, ram, or cpu speed
with that sort of dedicated server on a home lan. That
will be entirely dominated by the lan speed even with 100Mb.
If you are running a gigabit lan, it may be more noticeable.

>>> The idea is to put disk resources in one machine
>>> for ease of maintenance and reduced cost.

>> It doesnt really have to be a dedicated machine tho.

> That's true. But if I use my machine then when I am busy with heavy
> computing I would degrade performance. For example, I have about a
> dozen Mozilla windows open and refreshing at all times, a market-based
> charting package in real time and an active trading platform.

I wouldnt normally have that stuff off the server. The performance
will be noticeably worse than with it on the local PC instead.

> That's puts a load on the file system as it is, but what happens when my
> son wants to play a DVD movie and my wife wants to look at some pics?

Generally the DVD movie shouldnt be off the server either.

It does make some sense having all the pics on the server where
they can be conveniently accessed by the various PCs on the lan.

> I intend to put 2 removable 3.5" hard drive bays,

I dont like those, because they flout the ATA standard.

> a DVD/CD-RW burner and a DVD/CDROM
> highspeed reader on the box. That way we are
> covered for just about anything we want to do.

Its not generally a good idea to have that stuff on the server either.

> Thanks for your comments.

No problem, happy to discussed the detail for as long as it takes.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:c73sps0nof@news1.newsguy.com:

> Take anything that anybody who makes a living in the computer business
> (including me) says with a dose of salt--we all have our prejudices often
> based on limited information. What's important is how the currently
> available drives are performing, not on what the historical record of the
> company might be--they all produce the occasional bad design or adopt the
> occasional new technology that turns out not to be quite ready for prime
> time--if the current model is one of those then it's going to give you
> grief no matter who made it.

Well said. Not just the above quote, but all of it.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:47:35 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>But with a mirror it's not easy to recover
>individual or sets of files, it's the whole thing.

I do not understand. I would expect a so-called "mirror" to be a
carbon copy of the disk being mirrored.

Thanks for your comments - I read them all but have no reply, so I
snipped them for brevity.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 21:05:23 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>> This is what happens when you retire (semi-retire actually) - you
>> start looking for things to do. I really do not need a network file
>> server but it is something that I want to build from an old PC anyway.
>> I have one port left on my router that is just screaming to get
>> connected to something.

>Well, since you say you are looking for things to do, I think instead of
>hooking a file server up to that open port, you should hook up another
>router or switch. That will let you hook up another bunch of servers and
>PCs instead of just one. Keep you busy for a while longer. And if you
>want, you can use one of those cheap firewall / NAT devices and have a
>firewall within your own network.

LOL Just what I need to do - get into the network file server
business. I want to retire - not start a new career. :-)

>Lots of ways to keep busy!

I keep busy enough with VPNs. The file server is another project.

>What I want to do is get a new PC and turn this dual P3-800 into a file
>server with about 1TB of storage. It would be used to serve up AVIs and
>MP3s, and possibly recording programs as well using an ATI All-In-Wonder
>which includes a TV Tuner and recording software. So in the basement I
>would have this media server that has all the music, all the AVI movies,
>and all the recorded programs off TV.

You sound like my son. He already has over 100 CD with movies. He will
probably never watch one of them but he likes to collect them. Pack
rat.

>Then in the rooms with Television sets, I would need media players. There
>are wide ranges of devices out there right now, but the problem is not all
>of them support the video codecs I need (DivX, Xvid, MS-Mpeg4v2, etc). So
>the most reliable, quickest way is to build small form factor "shoebox"
>PCs. Unfortunately it's also the most expensive way.

Actually you are second-guessing my next project, after the file
server. I would like to have that network file server machine act as a
DVD player to our TV set. My son says all it will take is a TV card.

>To get
>Cat 5 up there would require running the cable through walls and/or cold
>air ducts.

I ran CAT-5 thru the attic but I did not fish it thru the walls. I
just ran it up the sides of the wall in the corner. A little paint and
no one notices.

>I can cable, but I'm no expert at going through walls and floors and cold
>air ducts. So I'm looking at 11g / 54g wireless.

Just run the wire up the corners of the room, or do like we did in our
bedroom - go along the baseboard to the master closet and then to the
attic.

>I wish I were better at cabling so I could avoid the whole wireless
>thing altogether.

Avoid wireless for what you want to accomplish. Just run the cable any
way you can and don't worry about the appearance. No one will notice
if you paint over it or run it along the baseboard.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 3 May 2004 07:42:23 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> I intend to put 2 removable 3.5" hard drive bays,

>I dont like those, because they flout the ATA standard.

Hmm.. what's wrong with ATA? Remember that I am considering a system
for home use.

>> a DVD/CD-RW burner and a DVD/CDROM
>> highspeed reader on the box. That way we are
>> covered for just about anything we want to do.

>Its not generally a good idea to have that stuff on the server either.

As I mentioned in another thread, we are also considering putting a TV
card in that box so we can watch DVDs on TV.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 18:09:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>RAID and backups serve different purposes. RAID provides a degree of
>protection against hardware failure, thus slightly increasing availability
>of the system. Backups provide protection against software failure, user
>error, malice, and other circumstances that can damage or destroy the data
>on a disk without there being a hardware failure.

>Without RAID, getting to where you can restore the backup can be a pain in
>the butt. But RAID gives no protection at all against "format c:".

But I was thinking about a removeable disk drive, one which I would
mirror and then take out to put on the shelf. I would put a third
drive in and let the system mirror it.

>It's built into Server. Officially Workstation can't do it without
>third-party software. Storage Review has published a procedure that _may_
>allow you to work around this--make backups first and test thoroughly
>before you trust it--
><http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=DesktopMirror>

As we all know, the server version of Windows is on the CD for the
workstation version. It's all a matter of accessing it.

>If you are going to hot-swap then you need a hardware RAID controller or
>SATA drives. Parallel ATA is not designed to support hot-swapping and the
>Windows RAID drivers do not support it. There are parallel ATA RAID
>controllers that do support hot swapping with compatible enclosures--you
>need to read the fine print. Also read the fine print on SATA--while the
>standard says that all SATA devices are supposed to support hot-swapping,
>that doesn't mean that every vendor complies with the standard.

Thanks for your comments. I will stick to cold swap for now. I reboot
my machine daily, so shutting off the power is no big deal. I never
trusted hot-swap devices anyway.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 03 May 2004 00:50:02 GMT, "Mr. Grinch" <grinch@hatespam.yucky>
wrote:

>> Take anything that anybody who makes a living in the computer business
>> (including me) says with a dose of salt--we all have our prejudices often
>> based on limited information. What's important is how the currently
>> available drives are performing, not on what the historical record of the
>> company might be--they all produce the occasional bad design or adopt the
>> occasional new technology that turns out not to be quite ready for prime
>> time--if the current model is one of those then it's going to give you
>> grief no matter who made it.

>Well said. Not just the above quote, but all of it.

All of you have been very enlightening. Thank you.

As I mentioned, I am thinking outloud about doing several things, like
having a DVD player-computer hooked to the TV and using it to be the
network file server where we can have data backup/recovery.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."
--David Crockett

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Bob wrote:

> On Sun, 02 May 2004 18:09:15 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>RAID and backups serve different purposes. RAID provides a degree of
>>protection against hardware failure, thus slightly increasing availability
>>of the system. Backups provide protection against software failure, user
>>error, malice, and other circumstances that can damage or destroy the data
>>on a disk without there being a hardware failure.
>
>>Without RAID, getting to where you can restore the backup can be a pain in
>>the butt. But RAID gives no protection at all against "format c:".
>
> But I was thinking about a removeable disk drive, one which I would
> mirror and then take out to put on the shelf. I would put a third
> drive in and let the system mirror it.

That's a backup. You're only mirrored when both drives are in the machine.
If the RAID system you're using will allow it try a triple mirror, two
drives stay in the machine and one gets rotated for backup.

>>It's built into Server. Officially Workstation can't do it without
>>third-party software. Storage Review has published a procedure that _may_
>>allow you to work around this--make backups first and test thoroughly
>>before you trust it--
>><http://faq.