On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 16:01 -0400, tom wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Les wrote: > > > Hi, everyone, > > I currently have four systems on my home network. I have them all > > configured as standalone systems, but the burden of backing them up etc. > > etc. is becoming too much. I want to set up a full network with server > > and common user directories. Currently I have 2 Linux only systems, one > > windows only system, and one dual boot. > > > > I have been monitoring (and sometimes helping, occasionally kibbutzing) > > the mailing list, so I believe I can figure out most of it by now. > > However, here is my question. > > > > I have one older low-end system, and one dual cpu system that is on all > > the time, either of which could be the server. However, the dual cpu > > system is where I do most of my work, including dual boot to windows. > > This makes it a bad prospect for a network server. I could configure > > and run XP pro in a virtual setup, but I am leery of making the full > > change to network server, with a virtual windows client and doing work > > on the server (compiling and running programs with occasional resets to > > clean up my big goofs). > > > > I am leery of using the older system simply because I suspect it is > > approaching mechanical, support, and electrical end of life (over 6 > > years old). Buying a new system is possible, but adding yet another > > 300watts to my system load would be tough. > > > > I think I would need to add wiring to the house. So, the question > > becomes do I trust the older system, make my system the server, adopt > > the remaining system (currently running f8) as a server, or should I > > just throw down the cash and get yet one more system for a server. Also > > I am thinking that having a common server would make backuppc simpler > > and support, backup issues and so forth would be much simpler. Could I > > continue to have the mail setup as it is with each system downloading > > email from my ISP? Setting up a mail server is not something I want to > > do for our home stuff. > > > > ` I suspect that on this mailing list there is someone who has been > > faced with a similar situation, so please if that person reads this, > > give me your experienced opinion. > > Well, I got opinion. Experience may be questionable, but I got opinion. > 8-) > > As I read it, you just want a file server/disk server with none of the > trimmings. For a server which just supports backup, durn near anything > should work just fine, as long as you stuff enough disk capacity in and > keep a nice UPS online. Should you prefer to keep the user files live on > the new server, you would have slightly more complexity but your files > follow you around. > > Guessing a bit in the dark, I'm tempted to suggest take your lightest cpu > machine for the server. Put a big disk in, and run both NFS and Samba so > it doesn't much matter whether or not you are working under Linux or > Windows. > I would mostly agree with the above. If I understand you have a newer f8 only machine I owukd use that one.Adding disk space might help things . -- ======================================================================= Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a wise guy. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
