Re: Tiny server?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Jan 18, 2008 9:36 AM, John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
> max wrote:
>
>>> But I don't really see the need for a small linux today.
>>> (I tried Damn Small Linux on a small USB stick some time ago,
>>> and wasn't too happy with it.)
>>> It seems to me any new machine allows enough RAM today for anything
>>> I'm likely to do,
>>> and 4GB or even 8GB USB sticks seem cheap enough.
>
>> I 'll say it again just cause....
>>
>> www.freenas.org
>>
>> its unix not linux but so what.
>
> To repeat myself, too:
> The selling point of freenas seems to be that it only needs 32MB.

Small download.

> But can one actually get a memory card or hard disk that small?

I think my mate William has some. Maybe 64 Mbyte; they use to be expensive.

> What actually is the point of cutting down to that extent?

Leaves free space for other stuff.

> Will it save energy?

Probably not.

I  would put reliability ahead of everything else.  If it saves energy by being down half the time that isn't good either. It is reliable and doesn't need alot of resources. I run FreeNas on an old  amd 300 mhz cpu and 384MB RAM but it actually doesn't need that much memory.
The fact that you could install it on a thumb drive is nice but I don't see the point in doing that for a server. I have it installed on an old ,very used, quantum bigfoot (it's actually bigger than bigfoot's foot)8.4GB HDD and I added another used HDD for additional storage. Ideal if you have an old machine laying around ( of which there are plenty to be had). It has an abundance of features and works well. This is of course just my opinion.

-Max


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux