My new storage server

Post by **Jeff** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:21 am

My parents just got a new computer. Now I am going to be using their old 1.4ghz sony vaio as my storage server. What do you think it should run (it has 512mb of memory)? I am in the Windows Home Server beta, but do you think it will support it? I will post more info about the drives and maybe a picture later.

Jeff

Post by **empireum** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:32 am

I don't see why WHS (or any Windows Server OS for that matter) wouldn't run on that box. Seeing it's only a storage server, the CPU shouldn't be a problem, you also got enough RAM. Slap some drives in and you should be ready.

Post by **expert01** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 am

If it's a storage server for web purposes, slap some distro of linux on there and tinker with getting FTP set up. If it's a home storage server, use WHS or Server 2003.

Post by **Jeff** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:11 am

Do you think Longhorn Server 2007 Beta 3 would run smoothly enough?

I was planning on it being headless... so I would need the capability to smoothly remote access too... any thoughts?

Post by **Bender** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:26 am

Windows 2000 Server

Post by **Jeff** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:29 am

Fireware wrote:Windows 2000 Server

If only I had a legal license...

Post by **Vista Ultimate R2** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:15 am

Jeff wrote:
Fireware wrote:Windows 2000 Server
If only I had a legal license...

It's mine, but not for long - I bought a bundle of MS software that someone was selling as a job lot on eBay, in order to sell most of it so that I hopefully end up with a profit and a few bits left over

Post by **Jeff** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:26 am

heres the picture of the computer: sorry its on an angle.

Post by **empireum** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:38 pm

Well, LHS would run smoothly enough on that box I suppose, although these specs (especially RAM) are to be considered as the minimum for LHS. WHS or Windows 2000/2003 won't be a problem at all.

I don't know about the headless thing, it'd be fine as long as you tell the BIOS to ignore missing keyboard and mouse and leave the graphics card in (just don't connect a monitor to it). I don't know what the system (and the OS, without modifications) will do without a graphics card, but both Win2K & Win2K3 Server can be configured to run without one.

I'd also go for the Linux approach. Install the necessary servers and you're ready. Headless setup and thus, remote administration is no problem either.

Post by **Jeff** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:48 am

OK, I have narrowed my choices to either linux or whs. If I did choose linux (which I think I will) what distro should I use? I have the Ubuntu 7.04 Discs that came through the mail, and I have suse 10.1. (however, I'm willing to download some different distros to try out).

EDIT: I have a 60gb drive currently installed, so you have an idea of the space i (currently) have.

Post by **Andy** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:34 am

If you're good with linux, then go for it. Otherwise you might find windows easier to use.

Post by **Jeff** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:50 am

Alright. I will be installing whs shortly.

Post by **spaceship9** » Sun May 20, 2007 8:27 am

well, now linux is EASY as all hell to install
and certainly much easier to configure then a windows server (imho)
if your new, i'd advise SuSE.
just download the DVD ISO and install
It can be installed and configured as a server fully in less then 14 clicks
but since you're probably a newb, be sure to install with a window manager like Gnome....

just to give you an idea how easy it is to install SUSE on a server, my school's system admin, who got a (Basic) degree in Windows server, couldn't get a windows server system (dunno which. I think NT) to work after a week. Then he tried out SuSE and in the same day it was up and running (abeit a few glitches with the printers... proprietary software+obsolete technology = long time for linux compatibility)

Post by **Jeff** » Sun May 20, 2007 9:52 am

Yep, I am a newb at linux, however I could probably get any windows server set up in about an hour. Anyways, I guess I will install suse soon. What interface (gnome, ect.) should I use? Which would be best for a server.

Post by **Andy** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:41 pm

Linux isnt as easy as it sounds. Sure you can get it installed easily, even I can do that, but when it comes to its interface and getting stuff installed, thats when the problems start. Thats why Ive never been a fan of Linux for anything. They just make it too difficult. I mean why not make it like Windows where you open a setup file, click a few next buttons and viola, installed. Nooo they have to use shells and crap like that. Not my idea of modern or fun really.

But yeah, whatever floats your boat but Id always chose windows because its something I know how to use.

Post by **empireum** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:28 pm

@Andy:
It also depends on the distro. SUSE, for example, wants to have a GUI and wizards for everything (that's why I don't like it that much, this is annoying me as hell). It's really almost as easy as Windows (or it was the last time I used it). Ubuntu (and Debian) is different, it requires the use of the CLI to get some of the other stuff done.

@Jeff:
As for a GUI on a server, forget about heavy stuff like Gnome, etc. I'd rather use something lightweight like Xfce if at all. The reason: You'll only be using the GUI to set the system up and to configure it if you're not using ssh or webmin. Most of the time, the system will just work headlessly, won't it? So for these times, a heavy GUI will just suck up hard drive space (and RAM, if it's running). So my advice would be to install a lightweight GUI like Xfce (if at all), configure the server and then quit X11, falling back to CLI when the system's going to be run headlessly (and a GUI is completely unnecessary then). Just start the GUI manually if you need it, saving the RAM for the stuff which really needs it.

Post by **ppc_digger** » Mon May 21, 2007 1:04 am

Andy wrote:I mean why not make it like Windows where you open a setup file, click a few next buttons and viola, installed.

Why do I have to search the web and then click next->next->next to have something installed? I mean why not make it like Ubuntu where you click Applications->Add/Remove Applications, type the name of the program in the search box, tick the checkbox next to its name, click OK and viola, installed.

UNIX has had software repositories since before Windows existed. Windows' software installation method was obsolete back when Windows was brand new. The DLL hell is one of the best examples of this. Why should every applications come with all the libraries it depends on? That's why a single Ubuntu CD can contain a live system and a full installation (with 5x more built-in software than Windows), while Vista fills out an entire DVD.

Post by **expert01** » Mon May 21, 2007 3:53 am

I'm with andy, I had a Debian box running Asterisk, and it's a pain in the ass to get EVERYTHING set up if you haven't done it before.

I would use WHS if I were you. It's designed to be operated headless, and you can add storage really easily.

Post by **empireum** » Mon May 21, 2007 4:02 am

May be, but setting up Asterisk is something else than storage serving. I bet setting up Windows Server properly including Active Directory and whatnot can also be a PITA if you haven't done it before and have no help available.

Post by **ppc_digger** » Mon May 21, 2007 5:12 am

expert01 wrote:I'm with andy, I had a Debian box running Asterisk, and it's a pain in the ass to get EVERYTHING set up if you haven't done it before.

Who's talking about Debian? Debian, like Gentoo, was designed to be customizable, rather than easy to use, like Ubuntu, Fedora or SuSE.

Post by **Jeff** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:13 am

Alright, thanks for all of the input. After all of these discussions, I have decided to install WHS. It will be installing in about 5 minutes.

Post by **spaceship9** » Mon May 21, 2007 9:31 am

your loose IMHO

@andy
hey Gramps! Heard of .rpm???
yep
Fedora started it. Its basically the .exe
you just run it and its installed
but the best thing IMHO is the package manager and update manager.
You go into Package manager, get EVERYTHING you want in one download swoop, then once a week run the update manager and it will find and update EVERYONE of your software programs. With windows, you either need to open each program manually then click update manually, with certain exceptions... and some times you need do DOWNLOAD the new app each time...

in the end its your opinion. Do you want Windows, with its certain benefits like having very good AVG, and its always fairly simple installations...
or linux with no need of AVG, and ultra simple installations split with hard installations....

Linux CAN run most windows apps, btw... its called Wine... running CS3 perfectly on my linux box through Wine... and also running Vista via Vmware...

Post by **empireum** » Mon May 21, 2007 9:07 pm

@spaceship9
RPM wasn't "started" by Fedora, but by Red Hat. And all these benefits you stated were already mentioned (using Debian/Ubuntu .debs, though) by ppc_digger.

Post by **Jeff** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:35 am

I really don't get what you mean by me being "loose"...

(300th post... yay for me!)

Post by **Bender** » Tue May 22, 2007 6:48 am

Stop the fanboyism or I will lock the topic.