i'm going to be building a fileserver to run alongside my primary computer, connected by gigabit ethernet. and running hardware RAID5 from a 3ware pci 4x sata raid card. probably with 4x 200GB or 250GB sata hdd's. since the raid card is true hardware i won't need much processor power or ram...i'm thinking 2.4ghz celeron or maybe a pentium 3 pc if i can find a cheap used one that's compatable...and 256MB of ram. anyway...this will be used for streaming my multimedia files and storing back up files from my RAID-0 array on my pc. the question is, if i use linux...one of the free ones, will it be compatible with window's xp pro on my pc? i want to set the fileserver up through "map network drive" on my pc, so i can have drive-letter access, and since i'm going to be spending around $1,000 just on hard drives and the controller card...i would like to keep the rest of the expenses at a minimum....any ideas?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
linux because it's cheap?
- Thread starter Sheazle
- Start date
Yeh you can do all that no probs. You might want more ram on the server though, thats my suggestion 
Almost every school in my city uses windows 2k or xp workstations and a linux server cause Microsoft are a bit when it comes to servers. Plus linux is free like you say.
Almost every school in my city uses windows 2k or xp workstations and a linux server cause Microsoft are a bit
when it comes to servers. Plus linux is free like you say.For a file server? That's insane. 64MB would do the job just fine. Probably wouldn't even touch the swap either.FunkStar said:Yeh you can do all that no probs. You might want more ram on the server though, thats my suggestion
Hell, 32MB would work.
Anyway. If you want to save some cash, ditch the raid card, and let linux do the raid. Linux raid works wonderfully ( in some cases, faster than the hardware raid..although that's mainly with the low end stuff from promise ). The only downside is portability. You can't take the drives and plop them in a windows machine, and hope the raid array works, for example. But other than that, it's a good choice.
Focus on drive speed and data through-put. Processor/memory/ect are all going to be adequate for whatever you do. To that end, you might want to be a bit selective about the nic you get. I've had good luck with 3com.
As far as the drives are concerned, I would recommend WD special editions ( 8mB versions ). I've had no troubles with them, and they seem to work really well.
For this setup, I'd recommend fedora core. Doesn't matter which version, although I think 2 has the 2.6 kernel which has the neat new drive stepping, so maybe I'd go with that.
unhappy_mage
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - October 2005
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2004
- Messages
- 11,455
Fedora Core will do the job fine, but if you do use that, 64mb isn't a good idea. Extra ram will basically act as raid controller cache for this application, especially with software raid. I'd suggest you set up the machine first and then decide if you need the $300 raid card. Cheap equals good.
I'd tend toward Intel NICs myself, I still haven't gotten over the monstrosity called the "Boomerang". Darn aussies.
I'd tend toward Intel NICs myself, I still haven't gotten over the monstrosity called the "Boomerang". Darn aussies.
corran_horn314
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 445
I'll just add a little more info/opinion here...
I don't have much raid experience yet, but without raid my fileserver runs fine with less processing power than you are planning. Also, mine has a 512mb stick of ram(was fairly cheap) and it never uses even half that, so you probably could get away with less than 256mb but if you plan on expanding the duties of the server or using a gui to administer it you might as well get more than you need. I'd give you hard numbers but i'm at work so i can't check it.
If you didn't already know, the program you would use to share the space with windows is called Samba.
I don't have much raid experience yet, but without raid my fileserver runs fine with less processing power than you are planning. Also, mine has a 512mb stick of ram(was fairly cheap) and it never uses even half that, so you probably could get away with less than 256mb but if you plan on expanding the duties of the server or using a gui to administer it you might as well get more than you need. I'd give you hard numbers but i'm at work so i can't check it.
If you didn't already know, the program you would use to share the space with windows is called Samba.
XOR != OR said:
I've lost two, one of them doing server duty, but I still don't think they're significantly more likely to break down that the competitors. Besides, in RAID-5 it won't be a problem swapping out a disk if it shows signs of dying. (Except for the price, of course, but HDs aren't too expensive these days.)
To be honest linux or Free/NetBSD sounds like a much better tool for this than windows.
Look into samba for the file sharing.
And yes, I second the intel NICs. They're good. (But stay away from the wireless cards.)
so samba is what i would use to set up the directories on the server, and then connect using map network drive on my workstation?
yes i'm definetly planning on using the 8mb versions, that's what my 120's are in my workstation, as well as in the computers i built for my brother and mom. never had any problems with them.
as for the machine itself, i can get a used pentium 3 workstation with 256 megs of ram and a 9 gig scsi drive for like $120. would that be compatable with the raid card and other hardware?
yes i'm definetly planning on using the 8mb versions, that's what my 120's are in my workstation, as well as in the computers i built for my brother and mom. never had any problems with them.
as for the machine itself, i can get a used pentium 3 workstation with 256 megs of ram and a 9 gig scsi drive for like $120. would that be compatable with the raid card and other hardware?