Hello all,

Well, I've been busy the last few weeks building and transferring data to my new home server, or if you like, BA backup server. So what was it before, and what is it now? Let me show you...


Old Server:
2.26GHz Intel Celeron, 128KB Cache
512MB 333MHz DDR RAM
40gb, 80gb, 200gb, 2x250gb usb, 2x500gb usb Hard Drives
100Mbps network
1.7TB total usable disk space, 1.5TB was filled
160watts power consumption


New Server:
2.5GHz Intel Pentium Dual Core, 2MB Cache, 800MHz FSB
2GB OCZ 4-4-4-15 1.8v RAM
160gb, 3x1tb, 2x250gb usb, 2x500gb usb Hard Drives
1Gbps network
4.3TB total usable disk space, 1.5TB is filled
70watts power consumption

Total cost of upgrade: ~£500 - no BA donations used, this was from my wages.
Total fun of upgrade: Lots
Problems: RAM I purchased decided it was DOA, so I took 2GB from my desktop PC, and its still there. I will RMA the DOA memory and get new memory so I can have the memory back for my desktop PC.


What does this mean for BA?
Hopefully more reliable backups and a longer archive of backups too.

What does this mean for home use?
I have more disk space to hold music, movies, and my website data, etc.



Questions, comments, rants, opinions please

im glad we have a new backup server but 500 of oyur own money? how much do you end up spending on ba a year!

BA costs £564/year to run.

with about 200 every month i imagine the servers are getting some nice upgrades every once in a while (just looked at monthly donations)

just out of curiosity why don't you use drive H as a 2nd beta backup? (i imagine its just there to be extra though for any thing in the future)

What happens to the old one?

200 what every month?

200 Rupees!

PIII Xeon?

And it looks like there's no room compared for BA's HDD.

EDIT: Also, server stats aren't updated.

Isn't it better to install Windows Server 2008, and if you can't, then 2003?

The script doesn't work.

Err... its a screenshot, of course the stats aren't updated...




No, what makes you think that? A server doesn't have to run a server OS you know.

oh im an idiot i was reading the grand total thinking ti was the total for the month more like £15-20/mpnth

Yes, but Windows Server isn't called Server for nothing. Server managing must be a lot easier on Windows Server, I guess.

Not really. The OS is suited to server applications, but isn't necessarily the best. For example Windows Server 2003 will not run Ghost 9.0, which I use to make archived backups. Windows XP will. And thats the root cause for using XP vs 2003, apart from the fact I do not own a 2003 license.

I'm hoping to get around about the same as Andy as im running out of space (Didn't have any to start with like ) or maby a core 2 duo basically mine will use minimal power
But yea ill stop blabbin' on, it's good for BA knowing that backups are saved for longer incase anything happens

I spent more than 10,000USD on each server initially, most earned from my wages from my own medium-buisiness.

I recently upgraded to Windows Server 2008 Enterprise, 64-bit VLK for all 8 of me servers. (Its legal!) Its upgraded from a Windows 2003 Enterprise, 64-bit VLK which is further upgraded from a Windows 2000 Advanced Server VLK lol. Big upgrade route.

Why a P3 Xeon?

I got 4 Xeon Processors for each of my computers, with 128GB (not MB!) of RAM and 8 1.5TB in a RAID 1+0

I would also think you would run XP Pro, because its not really designed for server applications, and it doesn't support Hyper-V, and then it wastes a lot of system resources on ggraphics, etc.

Edit: 110th post!

Its not a Pentium III/Xeon. If you read the posts you'd know that. You'd also know why I run XP if you knew about my servers. I need it to run Norton Ghost because it doesn't run on server editions. Also, I have no need for a server edition, nor do I have the money to pay for one.

Also, you broke the rules. This topic is over 30 days old.

Warning, and locked.